[alac] [fwd] Openness of At Large Structures (from: fausett@lextext.com)

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----- Forwarded message from Bret Fausett <fausett@xxxxxxxxxxx> -----

From: Bret Fausett <fausett@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: alac-comments@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
        Denise Michel <denisemichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
        Esther Dyson <edyson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
        Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:25:10 -0700
Subject: Openness of At Large Structures
Envelope-to: roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 04:25:22 +0200
X-No-Spam: whitelist

Dear ALAC,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft "Proposed Criteria and
Accreditation Process for At-Large Structures." I would like to suggest that
the Committee consider deleting qualification 5 of the Proposed Minimum
Criteria for an At Large Structure (which now reads: "Be open and
participatory; open to individual constituents who meet their membership
requirements and participatory in terms of involving individual constituents
in policy development, discussions and decisions.").

The reason is this: so long as certification of At Large Structures is not
exclusionary, exclusionary sub-units shouldn't have an effect on either the
ability of end-users to participate or the openness of the At Large system
as a whole. It may well be the case that clubs, private foundations and
other closed communities of users have something to contribute to the At
Large efforts (I am member of at least one such organization). While
individual users may be excluded from one organization, they will have the
ability to participate in another one, or form a new organization, so long
as the approval criteria at the RALO level is open and non-exclusionary.

Thank you for your consideration.

   -- Bret Fausett
  


----- End forwarded message -----