Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Idea for an alternative to the EMM proposed in the At-Large Review
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Feb 15, 2017 21:13, "Dev Anand Teelucksingh" <devtee@gmail.com> wrote: An online At-Large Chapter can accept organisation members without diversity restrictions. SO: Going solely chapter isn't sustainable and it can't just be virtual based if organisations are to join and if they are expected to be active locally. Hence some incorporation needs to happen which will make this not scale. It's easier(with its challenge) with ISOC because of the mission of the organisation. ICANN is mission limited. And the staff support would be the same as the staff support given to a RALO. SO: At the moment, direct staff support is to 5 RALOs, going national will make it to be more direct to X number of countries. Imagine number of lists to be managed, calls to be setup, meetings to be arranged (including doodle), transitions, other special request per country. Overall like I earlier hinted, I recognise the individual membership challenge in the current structure and perhaps having a single AtLarge chapter per RALO could help. I just don't think going the chapter per country would scale and be sustainable in the long run. Cheers! Dev Anand On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan@unam.mx> wrote:
Hi,
Aida, your note throws even starker light on the failures of both the ITEMS report and the "ICANN At Large Chapters proposal."
Both make an untenable analogy between either individuals in the EMM or the Chapters in the At-Large Chapters model and the ISOC or Rotary chapters: membership in ISOC or Rotary Club is voluntary and is based on an affinity of ideas and mission with the organization, locally and/or globally.
The "ICANN Chapters" model provides only one way to associate in order to interact with ICANN for at large, individual users and denies the diversity and self-organization of the communities.
Christopher Wilkinson has pointed to an additional, severe flaw of the Chapters model: more intervention by staff. Doesn't anybody here remember the intense controversies about "a staff-driven ICANN"? (they are still raging around gTLDs and the IANA oversight transition.)
Alejandro Pisanty
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
+52-1-5541444475 <+52%201%2055%204144%204475> FROM ABROAD
+525541444475 <+52%2055%204144%204475> DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 <+52%2055%204144%204475> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/ 22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------------------------------ *Desde:* at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [ at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Aida Noblia [ aidanoblia@gmail.com] *Enviado el:* miércoles, 15 de febrero de 2017 10:25 *Hasta:* Vanda Scartezini *CC:* at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org *Asunto:* Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Idea for an alternative to the EMM proposed in the At-Large Review
I agree with Vanda. Individuals can not be disconnected from RALOS. If there is one ISOC chapter per country as that organization has, all the individuals of a country are under a structure like ISOC, all these structures that are a Chapter by each country, should be under the structure of the corresponding RALO.
All this seems to me a complication that at the moment is added to other policy issues that seem to be priorities to enter into contemplating some individual individuals that could be incorporated. But we do not know how many will be or if they will really have a stimulus to incorporate in that way.
Then there would be the issue of voting ... Realmemte this is an extra complication that should be resolved with more time. In addition: we do not know how many people can integrate as well, we have no indication that this will really help to bring more people to work in ICANN. Perhaps the most practical and also necessary is to focus efforts on integrating more people who belong to the ALs that already exist into the work of ICANN. ..
I still think that the current structure is good and that before changing it would have to adjust its operation and efficiency.
Regards
Aída
2017-02-15 10:58 GMT-03:00 Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org>:
Agree with the problem- be part of an ALS normally demands engagement in its work locally. So I am in favor to have individuals as members – even in LACRALO we do not have this possibility. May become a good change. What I am not in favor is to have individuals disconnected from the Ralos. Ralos will have no clear meaning to grow with individuals running in parallel , working whatever they want to with not alignment with related Ralo. Individuals can also join another groups under ICANN struture but will be hard to have their work adding value to a particular region if disconnected from the formal structure. Having a parallel structure to RALOs do not add efficiency to budget and local interest either. Just add another group to dispute both.
Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. HAPPY 2017!
On 2/15/17, 8:49 AM, "at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Winthrop Yu" <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of w.yu@gmx.net> wrote:
Just some thoughts ...
> Dev: > - The motivation for ALSes to market to individuals in their country to > join At-Large is not there as organisations would seek to have persons > join and assist their organisation first than be involved ICANN At-Large. > Not necessarily. Instead at ISOC-PH it's the willing and able *individuals* who decide which issues to focus on, gather like-minded members and get help from the chapter/ALS' other members who may not wish to be as deeply or continuously engaged on a particular issue.
I expect that for each ALS there are Internet issues that are top-of-mind in-country, for example - i.a. online freedom and net neutrality. Clearly one problem would be how to raise awareness about ICANN such that ICANN's issues rise on those local top-of-mind rankings. The challenge here is that ICANN issues are (understandably) ICANN-centric and often seem far-removed from the more urgent issues that concern local Netizens. Thus, as we as a chapter/ALS cannot dictate which issues to focus on, then active individuals will naturally gravitate towards and engage in those specific issues which seem most important to them and where they feel they can best contribute.
That being said, it does help when an ICANN rep (like the one who flew in last year 2016) has a chance to sit down, chat and get to know at least the chapter/ALS officers. This is certainly appreciated and we hope to see her again this year. It is hardly helpful if an ICANN rep (like the one who flew-in in 2015 and 2014) immediately flys-out again after delivering his presentation, or (as in early 2014) when senior ICANN officers fly-in at the behest of in-country VIPs but without any contact or engagement with the local ALS. This simply exacerbates the impression that ICANN's concerns are far removed from those of the ALS and local Netizens.
Thus i would tend to agree with Maureen ...
> Maureen: > YET... despite the argument I provide above, my personal preference is still > the current ALS system but working more towards encouraging more individual > members to become more active within their ALS at a local level, and > providing evidence of their contribution towards end-user participation into > At-Large policy discussions.
With the additional proviso that it's not just about getting more members to become active, but also that ICANN / At-Large issues should be more relevant to the local context, so that members who are inclined to be active will be encouraged to engage on those (ICANN) issues.
WYn
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Aida Noblia
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
On 2/16/2017 4:30 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
... Overall like I earlier hinted, I recognise the individual membership challenge in the current structure ...
Focusing on this particular point, perhaps we can summarize some alternatives that are already currently available for direct *individual* participation ... Others have already noted (or indicated that they wished to have) [a] Some RALOs already accept individual members. It is also true that currently: [b] Some ALSes (including some ISOC chapters) accept members from outside the ALS' home country; and [c] some ALSes (or ISOC chapters) do not yet currently charge membership fees. As an example, given [b] and [c] above - it is possible for an individual (or even a group) from any country to 'virtually' join, say, ISOC-PH, then introduce various ICANN and At-Large matters for consideration. Whether the local members of such an ALS (or chapter) will follow the lead and engage on ICANN/At-Large issues is not guaranteed. But given the perennial shortage of active knowledgable people, there is a good chance that the local ALS will take-up some of the 'expat's' initiatives. It will depend more on whether the topics introduced are relevant to the locals, and whether the positions arrived at align with the local sense on the matter in question. It is, of course, also very possible that the 'guest' individual will have to do most of the work and go it alone, at least initially. As an option for 'virtual' individual participation, this is, at least, doable now. And, if actually executed, has the additional benefit of the 'expat' acting as a mentor and building awareness if not capacity within the 'host' ALS. Possible? WYn
participants (2)
-
Seun Ojedeji -
Winthrop Yu