[NA-Discuss] Fw: Due Diligence complete- Regional Advice requested ALS applicant "(170) University Community Partnership for Social Action Research"

[Alan Greenberg]

Evan, I don't disagree with the intent, but given 
our current rules, I find a hard time claiming 
that they meet our criteria unless their membership numbers demonstrate it.

Regarding "conflicted" individuals, given our 
(and the Bylaw) rules about "citizen or 
resident", those who are citizens of one country 
who live in another are not conflicted. They simply meet two criteria.

Alan

At 26/11/2012 08:58 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>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, where 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 nothing 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 more 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 participate in a 
>single region. Given that, I see no real cause for opposition.
>
>- Evan