[NA-Discuss] Bottom Up Action Procedure
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Wed Aug 24 16:12:56 UTC 2011
Comments in line.
> I would think that it should go something like this:
Reformatted for clarity (mine, and hopefully others).
> NARALO has a discussion on its mailing list and/or telephone conferences
This is necessary. And for both a records purpose, and for accessibility
purposes, the email list should be the venue of record -- that is, if it
didn't happen on the list, it hasn't yet happened.
> which is lead by the Chair.
This is optional. Agenda setting and call time coordination are facillitator
activities, which the chair may delegate. For example, suppose Marc Rotenberg
were the chair, and the subject of the present call was privacy. As chair, he
ought not to engage in vigerously pursusaive advocacy, yet as EPIC's lead, it
may be that -- on this hypothetical call for this hypothetical chair -- Marc
really wants to engage in vigerously pursusaive advocacy. Delegation of some
or all of the "chair" function is appropriate, for the period in which there
is a conflict of roles, and hence of interests.
> Once consensus is achieved,
What kind of consensus? Are there no issues for which voting is appropriate?
Who is a consensus-capable contributor?
> the Chair requests that the ALAC discuss the matter.
For those NARALO originating issues which concern one or more other RALOs,
in principal, though the coordination could be direct, and therefore not
involve any non-elected person, and also not depend upon a process model
that may frustrate the purpose of RALO-to-RALO communications.
For those NARALO originating issues which do not concern one or more other
RALOs, reference to ALAC is optional, not manditory.
> Discussions and spearheading of the matter at the ALAC level should be
> promoted by the region's duly elected ALAC representatives.
Agree. With the proviso that the elected representatives may be instructed
where the elected representatives do not support the NARALO issue in
question, or alternatively, that we come up with a proxy exception to the
process so that its general purpose in electing its representatives does
not prevent its specific purpose in refering a NARALO originating issue to
a body to which it elects representatives.
> This would also imply making sure that it got its own place on the agenda.
The obvious problem is what happens when an issue referred to a coordination
body cannot, for whatever reason, be scheduled prior to some relevant point
in time. The corollary is should an externally originating issue be referred
to the NARALO, what should the external body do if the outcome is not to its
preference, in timeliness or result -- fortunately, this is an issue for the
external bodies not the NARALO.
> Said duly elected ALAC representatives should make sure that they are aware
> of the history and importance of the agenda item so that they can speak for
> the region on the matter.
This is likely, though not certain, from the involvement of the elected
representives in the work of the NARALO.
> I specifically state above "elected ALAC reps" because the NomCom rep is
> not under an obligation to further the views of his/her region.
Actually, the NomCom is under no duty to select anyone with any knowledge
whatsoever of the NARALO, only regional resident status, so not only is the
NomCom appointee free to act arbitrarily, the NomCom appointee is presumably
unaware of anything more relevant than how to submit a SOI to the NomCom.
I suggest we schedule the subject for a future confrence call, and continue
using email to develop one or more proposals.
More information about the NA-Discuss