[NA-Discuss] For consideration at the monthly meeting

[Brendler, Beau]

This is an interesting idea...worth discussion I think.

Beau
________________________________________
From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 1:17 PM
To: NA Discuss
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] For consideration at the monthly meeting

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.



------
NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
------

***
Scanned

**
This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents.  If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.