[NA-Discuss] The status of ALSes

[Eric Brunner-Williams]

Avri,

> Interesting exercise.

s/Interesting/Depressing/.

> And a useful one if we ever ...

Well, I wouldn't suggest that it is necessarily lacking utility until
some condition not yet present ripens. That would imply that all prior
efforts to understand the problem were necessarily futile, when they
may have just been made so through inaction. See below.

> Or do we already have something like this and I just have not looked in the right place.

You might look in the "NARALO Secretariat Monthly Reports", one exists
for the previous five months of 2013, two exist for the 12 months of
2012, with no reference to ALS inactivity for in these three actual of
eighteen possible reports.

In a segment of the single report for 2011 dated July 18, the
following reference appears:

"1.  The issue of non-performing ALSs was put to the group.  It is
being undertaken by the Secretariats group and Darlene will keep
everyone posted on this."

In the same report, in a segment dated June 13, 2011, the following
reference appears:

"3.  The issue of non-performing ALSs was discussed.  A comparison was
made to the efforts that EURALO has made.  It was noted that we do
have mechanisms in place so that non-performing ALSs do not affect our
quorum.  Alan is going to research this further and post it to the list."

In a segment of the single report for 2010 dated July 12, 2010, the
following reference appears:

"4.  The topic of Inreach to existing non-active ALSs was discussed as
well as follow-up activities resulting from the ALS survey."

In the same report, in a segment dated  "March", the following
reference appears:

"One thing that was identified as a need for our region was the need
to do “in-reach”. We have ALSs that used to be quite active that we
hardly hear from any more."

There are no prior "NARALO Secretariat Monthly Reports" at this URL.

> As for how each of the ALS organizes itself internally, and the means by which they make decisions regarding ALS stuff, I tend towards subsidiarity.

Within the constraints of the responsibilities stated on each of the
Memorandizing Parties, I agree. However, absent a specific waiver of
these responsibilities of those Parties in breach, or a general waiver
of these responsibilities relieving all Parties of breach, or an
uncontested public general repudiation of these responsibilities by
the breaching Parties, these responsibilities appear to remain binding.

> Except of course for the individuals-ALS, their processes for self organization and decision making should be discussed by the RALO generally, though I do think it should be their decision which the RALO vets.

Again, the responsibilities stated on each of the Memorandizing
Parties cannot be presumed to be fictive and the subsequent rules and
procedures -- the NARALO Operating Principles of 2007, revised 3
October 2010, may not substantively alter these original responsibilities.

Eric Brunner-Williams
Eugene, Oregon