[NA-Discuss] Fw: Due Diligence complete- Regional Advice requested ALS applicant "(170) University Community Partnership for Social Action Research"
evan at telly.org
Mon Nov 26 14:58:50 UTC 2012
What is making this less clear cut is that the applicant seems not a
formally registered body, but a collaborative academic project with
multiple institutional sponsors/partners.
I'm familar with its infrastructure because I work for one of those myself.
The two core institutions, the administrative functions and the
communications channels are North America based. That's enough for me to
support it here.
Again, this is not an exact fit for the kind of ALSs envisioned, but I see
that as more opportunity than obstacle.
On 26 November 2012 09:41, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com <gbruen at knujon.com>wrote:
> Thanks Evan. My ALS has members from all of the world but we are located
> and registered in the U.S.
> When I applied to be an ALS I was asked which region I was going to
> If this group applied in multiple regions I think it might be a problem,
> here I'm not sure there is one.
> From: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan at telly.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 8:58 AM
> To: "Bob Bruen" <bruen at coldrain.net>
> Cc: "Houle Louis" <Louis.Houle at oricom.ca>; "NA Discuss" <
> na-discuss at atlarge-lists.**icann.org <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>>
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fw: Due Diligence complete- Regional Advice
> requested ALS applicant "(170) University Community Partnership for Social
> Action Research"
> I'm personally concerned about groups "falling through the cracks", being
>> unable to find any place within At-Large because our various sets of
>> categorization don't suit them. I see this now happening in the GNSO,
>> an association of cyber-cafés is looking for an appropriate constituency
>> and is being told "you can't get there from here" (everyone is saying that
>> they ought to be accommodated -- somewhere else).
>> If a potential ALS has a presence in multiple regions, there is IMO
>> wrong with it applying in any of those regions, so long as it understands
>> that it must pick only one. When it comes to conflicted individuals -- who
>> might be a citizen of one region but live or work in more than one --
>> At-Large has IMO traditionally erred on the side of inclusion and simply
>> said "pick any of the ones that could apply to you, but pick only one."
>> I believe there are regulations prohibiting a single ALS from being in
>> than one region at once. And I don't believe that this group has applied
>> for more than one region. This means one of two outcomes, both of which
>> should be accepted:
>> - They have a predominance of presence in our region
>> - They have participation in multiple regions, yet choose ours as the
>> one they want to belong to
>> It may be reasonable, as part of the due diligence, to ask the applicant
>> for a rough geographical breakdown of its membership if that is not
>> provided. And the applicant must be reminded that they can only
>> in a single region. Given that, I see no real cause for opposition.
>> - Evan
>> NA-Discuss mailing list
>> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.**icann.org <NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
Em: evan at telly dot org
More information about the NA-Discuss