[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 13:58:20 UTC 2012
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.
More information about the NA-Discuss