Review of ROP fo ALSes
Dear All, Following one of the calls, one of the key issues that came up was to review the ALSes structure. With reference to an update from NARALO (In this case - NARALO leadership best understands the situation) which I believe many of At-Large Structures may fall fate. Connecting.nyc Inc. (NARALO ALS) ceased to exist after the death of its member. Quoting the link "Recently we lost of our NARALO ALS which is Connection.NYC was Tom Lowenhaupt. Tom passed away and the organization ceases to exist and verified by Joly MacFie." I see this as an urgent call to action, where there is a need for a periodic review of ALSes to confirm their representatives after a given period of time. The lose or death of a member should not hinder or affect the representation of a community or group. Furthermore, Some of the ALSes that have passed due diligence - there works or activities may not be related to the mandate of ICANN. So this calls for a review of the ALSes in there respective participation and engagement in the respective processes. Is there a way to measure metrics of engagement and participation of ALS on whether they reflect the objectives and mandate? Another challenge is currently there are no or limited activities that involve ALSes reporting to there respective communities and vice verse - hence there is a need to rethink how ALSes engage with their respective communities in order to drive participation and effective engagement in ICANN PDPs. Some of the issues may be strong or a challenge to implement, though, with the growing need and shift in Policy issues that affect the end-users, there is a need to come up with new and innovative approaches to streamline participation and representation of end-users. Am open to suggestions or ways of how this can be effectively implemented and furthermore, I look forward to contributing to any working group that will be or is tailored towards this. Daniel K. Nanghaka ᐧ
Dear Daniel, Thank you raised this question. I agree with you and would like once again to raise the issue that some action and condition that determine the presence of ALS in RALO should be mandatory. The participation in discussions, meetings, calls, working groups, policy development, etc. Our Strategy O&E supposes we need to do the audit of ALSs list regarding physical existence of the organizations, specifics of activity (relating ICANN interests), we need to know define coordinating persons, the level of participation in our work. We are discussing and trying to find the way to activate our community, but we can`t do it and decide what we gonna do without bottom up information. So. Maybe the easy solution would be the annual survey in wich our ALSs will participate and answer the questions like this (and much more): - the kind of participation and collaboration with us - who is the coordinate person/alternate list - what has been done in the past period (regarding our common challenges) - what aspects or issues require our increased attention - what information is missing for better involvement in the At-Large work etc. Sincerely, Natalia Filina Officer of SIG IoT (ISOC) Member of EURALO Individuals’ Association https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo https://individualusers.org/ Member of ALAC Subcommittee on Outreach and Engagement 1. +7 906 722 54 61 Moscow, Russian Federation вт, 10 сент. 2019 г. в 15:11, DANIEL NANGHAKA <dndannang@gmail.com>:
Dear All,
Following one of the calls, one of the key issues that came up was to review the ALSes structure. With reference to an update from NARALO (In this case - NARALO leadership best understands the situation) which I believe many of At-Large Structures may fall fate. Connecting.nyc Inc. (NARALO ALS) ceased to exist after the death of its member.
Quoting the link "Recently we lost of our NARALO ALS which is Connection.NYC was Tom Lowenhaupt. Tom passed away and the organization ceases to exist and verified by Joly MacFie."
I see this as an urgent call to action, where there is a need for a periodic review of ALSes to confirm their representatives after a given period of time. The lose or death of a member should not hinder or affect the representation of a community or group.
Furthermore, Some of the ALSes that have passed due diligence - there works or activities may not be related to the mandate of ICANN. So this calls for a review of the ALSes in there respective participation and engagement in the respective processes.
Is there a way to measure metrics of engagement and participation of ALS on whether they reflect the objectives and mandate?
Another challenge is currently there are no or limited activities that involve ALSes reporting to there respective communities and vice verse - hence there is a need to rethink how ALSes engage with their respective communities in order to drive participation and effective engagement in ICANN PDPs.
Some of the issues may be strong or a challenge to implement, though, with the growing need and shift in Policy issues that affect the end-users, there is a need to come up with new and innovative approaches to streamline participation and representation of end-users.
Am open to suggestions or ways of how this can be effectively implemented and furthermore, I look forward to contributing to any working group that will be or is tailored towards this.
Daniel K. Nanghaka
ᐧ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Dear Daniel, a few days ago I was invited to speak at an engineering congress in Colombia (IV Engineering and Society Forum) organized by an ALS of LACRALO, seven universities and other professional associations. ICANN was not cited in its subject, although that theme was closely related to policy development issues at ICANN. Then I chose the theme "Industries 4.0 Internet security of things". And I talked about SAC 105. And there ICANN entered an event not organized by ICANN and that got a lot of attention for the amount of questions at the end. By this I mean: We have very active, but not participatory, ALSs in ICANN processes. To make them participate, you don't have to spend money (or not so much money). It would only be necessary for our leaders of the Ralos to make an effort to contact the ALSs and make the events known in advance, to offer the participation of people from each Ralo who are experts in some of the topics of those meetings and to be oriented to the participation in ICANN, but with concrete examples. Another measure is to implement metrics (below I copy those already approved in LACRALO). And I agree that the leaders of each RALO should verify the contacts of each ALS. It is not good to have a lot, we need quality and participation. Here the approved metrics: LACRALO -METRICS ACTIVE PARTICIPATION Participation and engagement criteria (indicators) are intended for: -Meetings (virtual and face-to-face). -Participation in working groups at all levels (LACRALO, ALAC, ICANN). -Participation in mailing lists. -Participation in local or regional events with specific content related to the topics covered by the MOU signed with ICANN. Until otherwise defined, LACRALO's Chair and Secretary shall be responsible for creating Participation Tables. Any ALS member participation shall be valid for metrics. For metrics record, identification of participants with the ALS acronym next to his /her name and surname is suggested. LACRALO shall use the following criteria and thresholds to measure ALS participation within our region and in At-Large activities 1) ALS active participation shall mean: Participation in at least 50% (fifty percent) of monthly meetings (teleconferences), 2)Participation in at least one webinar 3) Having at least one ALS representative in one LACRALO; ALAC, ICANN.Attendance shall mean attendance to all the above instances within the last calendar year being considered. Participation in local or regional events is not mandatory, nor supplementary to the above-mentioned attendance requirements. The Chair and Secretary shall be responsible for keeping regular contact with non-participating ALSs and said contact shall be duly documented. This is to maintain the inclusive criterion, in order to avoid de-certifications and to increase participation. An ALS shall not be able to apply (on behalf of LACRALO) for funding for a representative to attend face-to-face meetings held, sponsored and funded by ICANN, unless it meets active ALSes failing to comply with active participation criteria shall neither be able to apply for the CROP program. Regards!!! Alberto De: ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> en nombre de Natalia Filina <filinafilka@gmail.com> Fecha: martes, 10 de septiembre de 2019, 11:26 Para: DANIEL NANGHAKA <dndannang@gmail.com> CC: ALAC <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Asunto: Re: [ALAC] Review of ROP fo ALSes Dear Daniel, Thank you raised this question. I agree with you and would like once again to raise the issue that some action and condition that determine the presence of ALS in RALO should be mandatory. The participation in discussions, meetings, calls, working groups, policy development, etc. Our Strategy O&E supposes we need to do the audit of ALSs list regarding physical existence of the organizations, specifics of activity (relating ICANN interests), we need to know define coordinating persons, the level of participation in our work. We are discussing and trying to find the way to activate our community, but we can`t do it and decide what we gonna do without bottom up information. So. Maybe the easy solution would be the annual survey in wich our ALSs will participate and answer the questions like this (and much more): - the kind of participation and collaboration with us - who is the coordinate person/alternate list - what has been done in the past period (regarding our common challenges) - what aspects or issues require our increased attention - what information is missing for better involvement in the At-Large work etc. Sincerely, Natalia Filina Officer of SIG IoT (ISOC) Member of EURALO Individuals’ Association https://atlarge.icann.org/alses/euralo https://individualusers.org/ Member of ALAC Subcommittee on Outreach and Engagement 1. +7 906 722 54 61 Moscow, Russian Federation вт, 10 сент. 2019 г. в 15:11, DANIEL NANGHAKA <dndannang@gmail.com>: Dear All, Following one of the calls, one of the key issues that came up was to review the ALSes structure. With reference to an update from NARALO (In this case - NARALO leadership best understands the situation) which I believe many of At-Large Structures may fall fate. Connecting.nyc Inc. (NARALO ALS) ceased to exist after the death of its member. Quoting the link "Recently we lost of our NARALO ALS which is Connection.NYC was Tom Lowenhaupt. Tom passed away and the organization ceases to exist and verified by Joly MacFie." I see this as an urgent call to action, where there is a need for a periodic review of ALSes to confirm their representatives after a given period of time. The lose or death of a member should not hinder or affect the representation of a community or group. Furthermore, Some of the ALSes that have passed due diligence - there works or activities may not be related to the mandate of ICANN. So this calls for a review of the ALSes in there respective participation and engagement in the respective processes. Is there a way to measure metrics of engagement and participation of ALS on whether they reflect the objectives and mandate? Another challenge is currently there are no or limited activities that involve ALSes reporting to there respective communities and vice verse - hence there is a need to rethink how ALSes engage with their respective communities in order to drive participation and effective engagement in ICANN PDPs. Some of the issues may be strong or a challenge to implement, though, with the growing need and shift in Policy issues that affect the end-users, there is a need to come up with new and innovative approaches to streamline participation and representation of end-users. Am open to suggestions or ways of how this can be effectively implemented and furthermore, I look forward to contributing to any working group that will be or is tailored towards this. Daniel K. Nanghaka ᐧ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
Thanks Daniel and Natalia The ALS issue is a concern and will be addressed as part of Item 2 of the At-Large Review which is currently underway. The activities required to address your concerns raise are being coordinated as Post-ATLAS III activities. I think that we need to keep this separate from your O&E concerns, but be assured they are being planned as part of activities in which ATLAS participants and others will be involved, after Montreal. Maureen On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 2:11 AM DANIEL NANGHAKA <dndannang@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear All,
Following one of the calls, one of the key issues that came up was to review the ALSes structure. With reference to an update from NARALO (In this case - NARALO leadership best understands the situation) which I believe many of At-Large Structures may fall fate. Connecting.nyc Inc. (NARALO ALS) ceased to exist after the death of its member.
Quoting the link "Recently we lost of our NARALO ALS which is Connection.NYC was Tom Lowenhaupt. Tom passed away and the organization ceases to exist and verified by Joly MacFie."
I see this as an urgent call to action, where there is a need for a periodic review of ALSes to confirm their representatives after a given period of time. The lose or death of a member should not hinder or affect the representation of a community or group.
Furthermore, Some of the ALSes that have passed due diligence - there works or activities may not be related to the mandate of ICANN. So this calls for a review of the ALSes in there respective participation and engagement in the respective processes.
Is there a way to measure metrics of engagement and participation of ALS on whether they reflect the objectives and mandate?
Another challenge is currently there are no or limited activities that involve ALSes reporting to there respective communities and vice verse - hence there is a need to rethink how ALSes engage with their respective communities in order to drive participation and effective engagement in ICANN PDPs.
Some of the issues may be strong or a challenge to implement, though, with the growing need and shift in Policy issues that affect the end-users, there is a need to come up with new and innovative approaches to streamline participation and representation of end-users.
Am open to suggestions or ways of how this can be effectively implemented and furthermore, I look forward to contributing to any working group that will be or is tailored towards this.
Daniel K. Nanghaka
ᐧ
participants (4)
-
Alberto Soto -
DANIEL NANGHAKA -
Maureen Hilyard -
Natalia Filina