[NA-Discuss] For consideration at the monthly meeting

[Alan Greenberg]

I take issue with the statement that the NARALO could continue as an 
At-Large RALO and be a GNSO constituency. I am pretty sure that this 
would be over the line and not acceptable. It would (in my opinion) 
have to be an either-or thing).

Alan

At 27/09/2008 12:46 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
>There was a time when the ccTLD community was part of the 
>DNSO.  They weren't happy with the arrangement as matters of 
>importance to them couldn't properly be discussed and dealt with in 
>the DNSO environment.  Ultimately they chose to leave the DNSO and 
>formed their own Supporting Organization, the ccNSO.
>
>I think that we need to start asking ourselves if our concerns are 
>properly being served solely by continued participation in the 
>ALAC.  We put up issues for discussion, and invariably none of the 
>other regions discuss those issues.  Neither are our topics being 
>discussed by the ALAC members on the ALAC discuss list.  On top of 
>everything else, we need to worry about a continued trend of ALAC 
>non-participation that results in meetings where quorum is not 
>attained and where our work and concerns cannot be progressed in a 
>timely manner.
>
>As we consider the future, one particular option stands out.  The 
>GNSO is willing to accept new constituencies.
>
>As you know, the GNSO is the body that actually crafts new 
>policy.  All the ALAC has ever been able to do is to merely suggest 
>to the GNSO that they consider a new policy.  As I see it, the needs 
>of the North American community would be better served as a 
>constituent body within the GNSO than as a mere appendage to the 
>ALAC processes.
>
>That is not to say that the NARALO could not serve in both 
>capacities (within the ALAC and within the GNSO).  I am willing to 
>talk about the possibility of the NARALO becoming a formal 
>constituency within the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group of the 
>GNSO.  I see it as a better way forward that would allow us to 
>introduce motions directly to the GNSO for consideration.
>
>This notion also comports with the intent of the Board Governance 
>Committee recommendations to open up the Non-Commercial grouping 
>within the GNSO so that it doesn't remain the sole province of the NCUC.
>
>Let's talk about this.