Alejandro Your analysis of the diversity of the organizations in size and function and your list of what ALSs should be assessed for are both on point. It is always important that the actual characteristics of the members ship and the purposes be accurately reflected. I will bring them to the working for updating NARALO’s Rules and Procedures, although the RALO’s generally cannot create their own list of assessments. I may be worng about that. John More
On Feb 13, 2017, at 10:31 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan@unam.mx> wrote:
John,
indeed the size of the organizations varies widely. That is one of the facts that guided the design.
Some organizations may claim to have 150,000 members and others 50. The Web-of-trust concept applies first to obtain some certainty about the validity of these claims. The vetting process allows for that too. And you more or less know, at least within the region of the RALO, whom you are actually speaking with.
Another significant point against Dev's and in general "ICANN chapter" designs is that ALSs are diverse in another sense: functional diversity. Some would be primarily engineering or technical organizations (though in practice most of these abhor the At Large), others are lawyers' associations, others are primarily oriented to the defense of consumer or other rights, etc. This is one of the design principles that has more or less panned out.
We could do much better if we assessed ALSes for 1. fit under ICANN's mission, 2. ability to represent or transmit users concerns, 3. relevant activity - and repeat this assessment periodically. The salutary effects of this practice would reverse much of what the ITEMS study correctly calls a problem.
Alejandro Pisanty
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com <http://pisanty.blogspot.com/> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty <http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 <http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty <http://twitter.com/apisanty> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org <http://www.isoc.org/> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Desde: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de John Laprise [jlaprise@gmail.com] Enviado el: lunes, 13 de febrero de 2017 14:47 Hasta: 'ALAC Working List'; 'At-Large Worldwide' Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Idea for an alternative to the EMM proposed in the At-Large Review
I think we <>’re missing a point that the report inadvertently revealed and which it is trying to indirectly address.
The RALOs are all very, very different. Size, state of the Internet, and concerns of the region, not to mention the governments that tend to be prevalent. Creating a one size fits all type of RALO will be hard. If we seek to restructure the concept of RALOs, the new structure has to address the diverse ecosystems that exist within these geographical areas.
Best regards,
John Laprise, Ph.D. Consulting Scholar
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/>
From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Javier Rua Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 2:31 PM To: John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> Cc: ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>; At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Idea for an alternative to the EMM proposed in the At-Large Review
Two sovereign states. "A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated people with distinct political characteristics." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country>
Javier Rúa-Jovet
+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua <https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua>
On Feb 13, 2017, at 4:24 PM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com <mailto:johnl@iecc.com>> wrote:
There are 8 territories in NA region
These are countries:
* Canada * United States
These are US territories whcih for historical reasons have ISO 3166 codes:
* American Samoa * Guam * Northern Mariana Islands * Puerto Rico * United States Minor Outlying Islands * Virgin Islands, U.S.
The minor outlying islands are uninahbited, the rest other than Puerto Rico are tiny with a combined population less than Wyoming, the smallest US state.
Really, there are two countries in the NA region, the US and Canada. It is vanishingly unlikely there will ever be an ALS from any US territory other than Puerto Rico because they are so small.
Canada also has three thinly populated territories but since they are contiguous with the rest of Canada, ISO 3166 never noticed them.
Canada is divided into provinces and the US into states, but in both countries the large provinces and states are vastly larger than the smallest ones so they're not a very good way to subdivide, either.
We now return you to whatever we were talking about before.
R's, John _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large>
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/>_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org