I lik ethe idea but need more thinking in its implementation. For one, by-laws (or something similar) are needed, specially when it come to vote for the regional representatives. We need to think if organization can become members of these chapters an so on. There could be one chapter per country with one vote per country in the region. Still you need to manage all the chapters in the region. Just thinking out loud. -ed On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:52 AM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:

I like your idea of ICANN chapters within a country or perhaps a subregion of a large country.

As an ex-Pres of our Rotary Chapter, I find the Rotary concept interesting, but it does set a model that would encourage a wider opportunity for outreach as well as education and training, and policy input at a country level.. and all organised by the members. Rotary is also self-funding but with the opportunity to get funding from the parent body for special projects.

But it would also mobilise large groups of individual members who at least have a lot of things in common already as a starting point - language and culture,socio-politics, shared internet environment, etc

Sounds a little like the Internet Society of China model with everyone in one country under one umbrella.

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 4:04 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> wrote:

Here's an idea for an alternative proposal for At-Large to the EMM model proposed in the At-Large Review

My thoughts - The proposed EMM has flaws. Some immediate ones :

- it destroys the community and with that, the consensus building of community with replacement of individuals with even less ties to the public community. Such individuals will promote and collude with other individuals to keep themselves in the loop. Also, with many of the policy discussions in GNSO being English, this permanently eliminates persons from developing/emerging economies from non-English from ever participating. - given that any individual could already participate in GNSO, we would be no different from such random individuals - it removes the mandate on oversight and accountability on ICANN activities from end user interests - a thousand individuals in one large country will override 10 individuals from a small country so there will be less diversity in the EMM model only from those countries with large number of individuals. - Nomcom appointees to ALAC new to ICANN will serve as Liasions to other groups is not sensible

There are many more problems but I want to focus on a IMO a better At-Large model than the EMM one:

- ICANN establishes At-Large Chapters in each country similiar in concept to Rotary or ISOC chapters. - each chapter is open to anyone interested in ICANN from the interests of end users. - ICANN can set guidelines for each chapter - some examples: must do certain level of outreach, have term limits, have a public F2F awareness meeting to recruit new persons. ICANN would need to provide some funding to make this happen but this would be small and the chapters can account to ICANN for expenses. - ICANN can provide the tools (mailing lists, conference tools) to facilitate online discussions. - Because there is a consistent brand - At-Large Chapter in the country, marketing/promoting is greatly simplified and easier to explain. - Given that such chapters are virtual, it makes chapters easy to establish with only a few individuals from a country without the challenges of having formal organisations with bylaws and pay taxes.

So an At-Large chapter ends up being a virtual ALS in each country in the ALAC/RALO/ALS model.

The RALOs will consist of the chapters from each country in the region with each chapter electing two persons to coordinate the RALO work. The RALO will be better positioned to better fulfil its MOUs with ICANN and the RALO and ALAC would not have to bother with analysing whether an organisation meets the criteria of an ALS.

The At-Large chapters will be better able to network with At-Large chapters in other countries and build consensus on policy issues and help promote and grow the At-Large Community.

--- Dev Anand

_______________________________________________ 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...)

_______________________________________________ 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...)

In NARALO there are only two countries - Canada and USA (Puerto Rico is a colony of USA and considered under the USA umbrella). -ed On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 12:06 PM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:

I see what you mean Eduardo.

For example, one chapter per country would limit the number of voting chapters at election time for some regions... . How many countries in NARALO? I think there are over 70 in APRALO.

Will regions have to be changed to allow for more equitable distribution of country chapters? I am sure that Cheryl would love to start that discussion over again... NOT!

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com

...

wrote:

I lik ethe idea but need more thinking in its implementation.

For one, by-laws (or something similar) are needed, specially when it come to vote for the regional representatives. We need to think if organization can become members of these chapters an so on. There could be one chapter per country with one vote per country in the region. Still you need to manage all the chapters in the region. Just thinking out loud.

-ed

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:52 AM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:

I like your idea of ICANN chapters within a country or perhaps a subregion of a large country.

As an ex-Pres of our Rotary Chapter, I find the Rotary concept interesting, but it does set a model that would encourage a wider opportunity for outreach as well as education and training, and policy input at a country level.. and all organised by the members. Rotary is also self-funding but with the opportunity to get funding from the parent body for special projects.

But it would also mobilise large groups of individual members who at least have a lot of things in common already as a starting point - language and culture,socio-politics, shared internet environment, etc

Sounds a little like the Internet Society of China model with everyone in one country under one umbrella.

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 4:04 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> wrote:

Here's an idea for an alternative proposal for At-Large to the EMM model proposed in the At-Large Review

My thoughts - The proposed EMM has flaws. Some immediate ones :

- it destroys the community and with that, the consensus building of community with replacement of individuals with even less ties to the public community. Such individuals will promote and collude with other individuals to keep themselves in the loop. Also, with many of the policy discussions in GNSO being English, this permanently eliminates persons from developing/emerging economies from non-English from ever participating. - given that any individual could already participate in GNSO, we would be no different from such random individuals - it removes the mandate on oversight and accountability on ICANN activities from end user interests - a thousand individuals in one large country will override 10 individuals from a small country so there will be less diversity in the EMM model only from those countries with large number of individuals. - Nomcom appointees to ALAC new to ICANN will serve as Liasions to other groups is not sensible

There are many more problems but I want to focus on a IMO a better At-Large model than the EMM one:

- ICANN establishes At-Large Chapters in each country similiar in concept to Rotary or ISOC chapters. - each chapter is open to anyone interested in ICANN from the interests of end users. - ICANN can set guidelines for each chapter - some examples: must do certain level of outreach, have term limits, have a public F2F awareness meeting to recruit new persons. ICANN would need to provide some funding to make this happen but this would be small and the chapters can account to ICANN for expenses. - ICANN can provide the tools (mailing lists, conference tools) to facilitate online discussions. - Because there is a consistent brand - At-Large Chapter in the country, marketing/promoting is greatly simplified and easier to explain. - Given that such chapters are virtual, it makes chapters easy to establish with only a few individuals from a country without the challenges of having formal organisations with bylaws and pay taxes.

So an At-Large chapter ends up being a virtual ALS in each country in the ALAC/RALO/ALS model.

The RALOs will consist of the chapters from each country in the region with each chapter electing two persons to coordinate the RALO work. The RALO will be better positioned to better fulfil its MOUs with ICANN and the RALO and ALAC would not have to bother with analysing whether an organisation meets the criteria of an ALS.

The At-Large chapters will be better able to network with At-Large chapters in other countries and build consensus on policy issues and help promote and grow the At-Large Community.

--- Dev Anand

_______________________________________________ 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...)

_______________________________________________ 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...)

In ICANN USA is a region not a country Carlos Vera Ecuador

On Feb 13, 2017, at 11:52 AM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:

There you go, you could share the roles - Chair, Vice Chair and Secretariat and take turns in the different positions, as long as you changed the people too - can't have them staying as a leader forever :)

...

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote: In NARALO there are only two countries - Canada and USA (Puerto Rico is a colony of USA and considered under the USA umbrella).

-ed

...

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 12:06 PM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: I see what you mean Eduardo.

For example, one chapter per country would limit the number of voting chapters at election time for some regions... . How many countries in NARALO? I think there are over 70 in APRALO.

Will regions have to be changed to allow for more equitable distribution of country chapters? I am sure that Cheryl would love to start that discussion over again... NOT!

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote: I lik ethe idea but need more thinking in its implementation.

For one, by-laws (or something similar) are needed, specially when it come to vote for the regional representatives. We need to think if organization can become members of these chapters an so on. There could be one chapter per country with one vote per country in the region. Still you need to manage all the chapters in the region. Just thinking out loud.

-ed

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:52 AM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: I like your idea of ICANN chapters within a country or perhaps a subregion of a large country.

As an ex-Pres of our Rotary Chapter, I find the Rotary concept interesting, but it does set a model that would encourage a wider opportunity for outreach as well as education and training, and policy input at a country level.. and all organised by the members. Rotary is also self-funding but with the opportunity to get funding from the parent body for special projects.

But it would also mobilise large groups of individual members who at least have a lot of things in common already as a starting point - language and culture,socio-politics, shared internet environment, etc

Sounds a little like the Internet Society of China model with everyone in one country under one umbrella.

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 4:04 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> wrote: Here's an idea for an alternative proposal for At-Large to the EMM model proposed in the At-Large Review

My thoughts - The proposed EMM has flaws. Some immediate ones :

- it destroys the community and with that, the consensus building of community with replacement of individuals with even less ties to the public community. Such individuals will promote and collude with other individuals to keep themselves in the loop. Also, with many of the policy discussions in GNSO being English, this permanently eliminates persons from developing/emerging economies from non-English from ever participating. - given that any individual could already participate in GNSO, we would be no different from such random individuals - it removes the mandate on oversight and accountability on ICANN activities from end user interests - a thousand individuals in one large country will override 10 individuals from a small country so there will be less diversity in the EMM model only from those countries with large number of individuals. - Nomcom appointees to ALAC new to ICANN will serve as Liasions to other groups is not sensible

There are many more problems but I want to focus on a IMO a better At-Large model than the EMM one:

- ICANN establishes At-Large Chapters in each country similiar in concept to Rotary or ISOC chapters. - each chapter is open to anyone interested in ICANN from the interests of end users. - ICANN can set guidelines for each chapter - some examples: must do certain level of outreach, have term limits, have a public F2F awareness meeting to recruit new persons. ICANN would need to provide some funding to make this happen but this would be small and the chapters can account to ICANN for expenses. - ICANN can provide the tools (mailing lists, conference tools) to facilitate online discussions. - Because there is a consistent brand - At-Large Chapter in the country, marketing/promoting is greatly simplified and easier to explain. - Given that such chapters are virtual, it makes chapters easy to establish with only a few individuals from a country without the challenges of having formal organisations with bylaws and pay taxes.

So an At-Large chapter ends up being a virtual ALS in each country in the ALAC/RALO/ALS model.

The RALOs will consist of the chapters from each country in the region with each chapter electing two persons to coordinate the RALO work. The RALO will be better positioned to better fulfil its MOUs with ICANN and the RALO and ALAC would not have to bother with analysing whether an organisation meets the criteria of an ALS.

The At-Large chapters will be better able to network with At-Large chapters in other countries and build consensus on policy issues and help promote and grow the At-Large Community.

--- Dev Anand

_______________________________________________ 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...)

_______________________________________________ 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...)

_______________________________________________ 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

My take is that the new ALAC is actually the current RALO Leaders Group where ITEMS assumes that all information will go directly to the ALAC via their RALO representative without any intermediary discussions that are possible in the RALOs. You are right Vanda..RALOs as we know them now dont exist in the ITEMS model. But what has also been neglected are the other organisational things that normally happen at RALO level - Who is coordinating the membership for regional representation on the CCWGs or for various constituency contacts or outreach sessions at ICANN meetings? How will all those activities be coordinated? (Staff?) What will be the RALO leadership election process under EMM? individual membership, individual vote? Who will run the elections? (Staff?) If the staff arent doing it and it goes back to the ALAC then we are back to square one where their role can be taken up with more process than policy. On 13/02/2017 7:44 am, "Vanda Scartezini" <vanda@scartezini.org> wrote:

I am concerning about the future with, for me not so clear, real role of RALOs under this proposal.

I have real concerning about rapporteur reporting to ALAC directly and also about , in my view, individuals possibly totally disconnected from the Ralo focus on policy matters.

Another point not good for me is allow voting for Ralo positions with just 3 months participating... Ralos will become more and more irrelevant and I do not see this as an improvement for the organization.

From my view, anyone reporting in any policy working group they like to be participant and send directly to ALAC, looks like quite difficult to organize, there is no sharing of information to region neither feedback from and in the end will lose the sense of what is important for that specific region….regarding to policy.

I like the idea of free individual’s participation but with a stronger connection with the Ralos if they want to become rapporteurs, candidates or voting members of any Ralo.

I am also in favor to take rapporteurs to ICANN meetings, but this must be on issues and themes aligned with regional interest and after the report is done and debated with regional community.

From my view Ralo shall be the one sending the report of any policy to ALAC, with the name of the rapporteur registered of course.

Good ideas in the report that need some discussion to see how they can be implemented.

*Vanda Scartezini*

*Polo Consultores Associados*

*Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004*

*01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil*

*Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 <+55%2011%203266-6253>*

*Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 <+55%2011%2098181-1464> *

*Sorry for any typos. *

*HAPPY 2017!*

*From: *<at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> *Date: *Monday, February 13, 2017 at 2:09 PM *To: *Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> *Cc: *'ALAC 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

In NARALO there are only two countries - Canada and USA (Puerto Rico is a colony of USA and considered under the USA umbrella).

-ed

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 12:06 PM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:

I see what you mean Eduardo.

For example, one chapter per country would limit the number of voting chapters at election time for some regions... . How many countries in NARALO? I think there are over 70 in APRALO.

Will regions have to be changed to allow for more equitable distribution of country chapters? I am sure that Cheryl would love to start that discussion over again... NOT!

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com

...

wrote:

I lik ethe idea but need more thinking in its implementation.

For one, by-laws (or something similar) are needed, specially when it come to vote for the regional representatives. We need to think if organization can become members of these chapters an so on. There could be one chapter per country with one vote per country in the region. Still you need to manage all the chapters in the region. Just thinking out loud.

-ed

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:52 AM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:

I like your idea of ICANN chapters within a country or perhaps a subregion of a large country.

As an ex-Pres of our Rotary Chapter, I find the Rotary concept interesting, but it does set a model that would encourage a wider opportunity for outreach as well as education and training, and policy input at a country level.. and all organised by the members. Rotary is also self-funding but with the opportunity to get funding from the parent body for special projects.

But it would also mobilise large groups of individual members who at least have a lot of things in common already as a starting point - language and culture,socio-politics, shared internet environment, etc

Sounds a little like the Internet Society of China model with everyone in one country under one umbrella.

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 4:04 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> wrote:

Here's an idea for an alternative proposal for At-Large to the EMM model proposed in the At-Large Review

My thoughts - The proposed EMM has flaws. Some immediate ones :

- it destroys the community and with that, the consensus building of community with replacement of individuals with even less ties to the public community. Such individuals will promote and collude with other individuals to keep themselves in the loop. Also, with many of the policy discussions in GNSO being English, this permanently eliminates persons from developing/emerging economies from non-English from ever participating. - given that any individual could already participate in GNSO, we would be no different from such random individuals

- it removes the mandate on oversight and accountability on ICANN activities from end user interests

- a thousand individuals in one large country will override 10 individuals from a small country so there will be less diversity in the EMM model only from those countries with large number of individuals. - Nomcom appointees to ALAC new to ICANN will serve as Liasions to other groups is not sensible

There are many more problems but I want to focus on a IMO a better At-Large model than the EMM one:

- ICANN establishes At-Large Chapters in each country similiar in concept to Rotary or ISOC chapters.

- each chapter is open to anyone interested in ICANN from the interests of end users.

- ICANN can set guidelines for each chapter - some examples: must do certain level of outreach, have term limits, have a public F2F awareness meeting to recruit new persons. ICANN would need to provide some funding to make this happen but this would be small and the chapters can account to ICANN for expenses.

- ICANN can provide the tools (mailing lists, conference tools) to facilitate online discussions.

- Because there is a consistent brand - At-Large Chapter in the country, marketing/promoting is greatly simplified and easier to explain.

- Given that such chapters are virtual, it makes chapters easy to establish with only a few individuals from a country without the challenges of having formal organisations with bylaws and pay taxes.

So an At-Large chapter ends up being a virtual ALS in each country in the ALAC/RALO/ALS model.

The RALOs will consist of the chapters from each country in the region with each chapter electing two persons to coordinate the RALO work. The RALO will be better positioned to better fulfil its MOUs with ICANN and the RALO and ALAC would not have to bother with analysing whether an organisation meets the criteria of an ALS.

The At-Large chapters will be better able to network with At-Large chapters in other countries and build consensus on policy issues and help promote and grow the At-Large Community.

---

Dev Anand

_______________________________________________ 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+(ALAC)

_______________________________________________ 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+(ALAC)

Correct. Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua

On Feb 13, 2017, at 2:07 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> wrote:

There are 8 territories in NA region * American Samoa * Canada * Guam * Northern Mariana Islands * Puerto Rico * United States Minor Outlying Islands * United States * Virgin Islands, U.S.

Dev Anand

...

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote: In NARALO there are only two countries - Canada and USA (Puerto Rico is a colony of USA and considered under the USA umbrella).

-ed

...

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 12:06 PM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: I see what you mean Eduardo.

For example, one chapter per country would limit the number of voting chapters at election time for some regions... . How many countries in NARALO? I think there are over 70 in APRALO.

Will regions have to be changed to allow for more equitable distribution of country chapters? I am sure that Cheryl would love to start that discussion over again... NOT!

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote: I lik ethe idea but need more thinking in its implementation.

For one, by-laws (or something similar) are needed, specially when it come to vote for the regional representatives. We need to think if organization can become members of these chapters an so on. There could be one chapter per country with one vote per country in the region. Still you need to manage all the chapters in the region. Just thinking out loud.

-ed

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:52 AM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: I like your idea of ICANN chapters within a country or perhaps a subregion of a large country.

As an ex-Pres of our Rotary Chapter, I find the Rotary concept interesting, but it does set a model that would encourage a wider opportunity for outreach as well as education and training, and policy input at a country level.. and all organised by the members. Rotary is also self-funding but with the opportunity to get funding from the parent body for special projects.

But it would also mobilise large groups of individual members who at least have a lot of things in common already as a starting point - language and culture,socio-politics, shared internet environment, etc

Sounds a little like the Internet Society of China model with everyone in one country under one umbrella.

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 4:04 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> wrote: Here's an idea for an alternative proposal for At-Large to the EMM model proposed in the At-Large Review

My thoughts - The proposed EMM has flaws. Some immediate ones :

- it destroys the community and with that, the consensus building of community with replacement of individuals with even less ties to the public community. Such individuals will promote and collude with other individuals to keep themselves in the loop. Also, with many of the policy discussions in GNSO being English, this permanently eliminates persons from developing/emerging economies from non-English from ever participating. - given that any individual could already participate in GNSO, we would be no different from such random individuals - it removes the mandate on oversight and accountability on ICANN activities from end user interests - a thousand individuals in one large country will override 10 individuals from a small country so there will be less diversity in the EMM model only from those countries with large number of individuals. - Nomcom appointees to ALAC new to ICANN will serve as Liasions to other groups is not sensible

There are many more problems but I want to focus on a IMO a better At-Large model than the EMM one:

- ICANN establishes At-Large Chapters in each country similiar in concept to Rotary or ISOC chapters. - each chapter is open to anyone interested in ICANN from the interests of end users. - ICANN can set guidelines for each chapter - some examples: must do certain level of outreach, have term limits, have a public F2F awareness meeting to recruit new persons. ICANN would need to provide some funding to make this happen but this would be small and the chapters can account to ICANN for expenses. - ICANN can provide the tools (mailing lists, conference tools) to facilitate online discussions. - Because there is a consistent brand - At-Large Chapter in the country, marketing/promoting is greatly simplified and easier to explain. - Given that such chapters are virtual, it makes chapters easy to establish with only a few individuals from a country without the challenges of having formal organisations with bylaws and pay taxes.

So an At-Large chapter ends up being a virtual ALS in each country in the ALAC/RALO/ALS model.

The RALOs will consist of the chapters from each country in the region with each chapter electing two persons to coordinate the RALO work. The RALO will be better positioned to better fulfil its MOUs with ICANN and the RALO and ALAC would not have to bother with analysing whether an organisation meets the criteria of an ALS.

The At-Large chapters will be better able to network with At-Large chapters in other countries and build consensus on policy issues and help promote and grow the At-Large Community.

--- Dev Anand

_______________________________________________ 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...)

_______________________________________________ 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...)

_______________________________________________ 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

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 Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua On Feb 13, 2017, at 4:24 PM, John R. Levine <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 https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

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 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 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/ 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 Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 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 At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

+1 On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with Alejandro and with the three points of his propose. They are a good global solution for to improve the funcionality of ALs, and resolve the problems ITEMS saw.

Regards

Aída Noblia

2017-02-14 0:31 GMT-03:00 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan@unam.mx>:

...

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 <+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 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/

*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

Javier Rúa-Jovet

+1-787-396-6511 <+1%20787-396-6511>

twitter: @javrua

skype: javier.rua1

https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua

On Feb 13, 2017, at 4:24 PM, John R. Levine <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 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

+1 to the 3 points listed as well. However, this effort already started both at RALO and ALAC level (before the current review). I think one of the challenge with a volunteer community is the burnout tendency, hence that effort may seem slow, but there is also a possibility that if we are able to accelerate the efforts, it will ultimately reduce burnout rate. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Feb 14, 2017 04:32, "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 <+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 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/

*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

Javier Rúa-Jovet

+1-787-396-6511 <+1%20787-396-6511>

twitter: @javrua

skype: javier.rua1

https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua

On Feb 13, 2017, at 4:24 PM, John R. Levine <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 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

So an At-Large Chapter would have to select/elect representatives within the At-Large Chapter to represent the At-Large Chapter in the RALO affairs. Given that the online aspects of the At-Large chapter would be be done by ICANN (such as mailing lists, online conferencing, website hosting, online voting, At-Large wiki accounts), then there would be little need to formally register an organisation in a country that would have to then pay taxes. Not that a At-Large Chapter wouldn't have rules or by-laws. But what would also be good is that the such by-laws for At-Large Chapters would be consistent. For voting, persons in the At-Large chapter would be eligible to participate in At-Large or run for positions in At-Large. For positions in At-Large, such persons can be nominated by any At-Large Chapter in the RALO and the RALO then votes with each At-Large chapter having a vote in the RALO if consensus in the RALO can't be achieved. An At-Large chapter should have consensus as to who it wants to support, but if not, worse case, there can be an election process within the At-Large chapter as to who the chapter will support. Dev Anand On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:

I lik ethe idea but need more thinking in its implementation.

For one, by-laws (or something similar) are needed, specially when it come to vote for the regional representatives. We need to think if organization can become members of these chapters an so on. There could be one chapter per country with one vote per country in the region. Still you need to manage all the chapters in the region. Just thinking out loud.

-ed

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:52 AM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:

...

I like your idea of ICANN chapters within a country or perhaps a subregion of a large country.

As an ex-Pres of our Rotary Chapter, I find the Rotary concept interesting, but it does set a model that would encourage a wider opportunity for outreach as well as education and training, and policy input at a country level.. and all organised by the members. Rotary is also self-funding but with the opportunity to get funding from the parent body for special projects.

But it would also mobilise large groups of individual members who at least have a lot of things in common already as a starting point - language and culture,socio-politics, shared internet environment, etc

Sounds a little like the Internet Society of China model with everyone in one country under one umbrella.

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 4:04 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com

...

wrote:

Here's an idea for an alternative proposal for At-Large to the EMM model proposed in the At-Large Review

My thoughts - The proposed EMM has flaws. Some immediate ones :

- it destroys the community and with that, the consensus building of community with replacement of individuals with even less ties to the public community. Such individuals will promote and collude with other individuals to keep themselves in the loop. Also, with many of the policy discussions in GNSO being English, this permanently eliminates persons from developing/emerging economies from non-English from ever participating. - given that any individual could already participate in GNSO, we would be no different from such random individuals - it removes the mandate on oversight and accountability on ICANN activities from end user interests - a thousand individuals in one large country will override 10 individuals from a small country so there will be less diversity in the EMM model only from those countries with large number of individuals. - Nomcom appointees to ALAC new to ICANN will serve as Liasions to other groups is not sensible

There are many more problems but I want to focus on a IMO a better At-Large model than the EMM one:

- ICANN establishes At-Large Chapters in each country similiar in concept to Rotary or ISOC chapters. - each chapter is open to anyone interested in ICANN from the interests of end users. - ICANN can set guidelines for each chapter - some examples: must do certain level of outreach, have term limits, have a public F2F awareness meeting to recruit new persons. ICANN would need to provide some funding to make this happen but this would be small and the chapters can account to ICANN for expenses. - ICANN can provide the tools (mailing lists, conference tools) to facilitate online discussions. - Because there is a consistent brand - At-Large Chapter in the country, marketing/promoting is greatly simplified and easier to explain. - Given that such chapters are virtual, it makes chapters easy to establish with only a few individuals from a country without the challenges of having formal organisations with bylaws and pay taxes.

So an At-Large chapter ends up being a virtual ALS in each country in the ALAC/RALO/ALS model.

The RALOs will consist of the chapters from each country in the region with each chapter electing two persons to coordinate the RALO work. The RALO will be better positioned to better fulfil its MOUs with ICANN and the RALO and ALAC would not have to bother with analysing whether an organisation meets the criteria of an ALS.

The At-Large chapters will be better able to network with At-Large chapters in other countries and build consensus on policy issues and help promote and grow the At-Large Community.

--- Dev Anand

_______________________________________________ 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/di splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A...>

_______________________________________________ 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/di splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A...>

Hello Seun, to respond to your questions/comments: 1. What is wrong with the current ALS structure that the "ISOC chapter like" setup as a replacement would address? If this is with regards to individual membership, isn't some RALOs already doing that? What can we learn from their experience and how can we improve on it sounds like a way forward to me. - A lot of time and energy is used in At-Large to "certifying" organisations as At-large Structures, whether organisations are end user focused, are organisations legitimate, how much members it has, what are the bylaws of the organisation - it takes months, sometimes years for an organisation to become accredited as an At-Large Structure with the ultimate end result being one or two persons in an organisation having the volunteer time, energy, passion to be involved in At-Large whilst serving their organisation. That's because many organisations' (including ISOC chapters) reason for being is not singularly focused on the narrow remit of ICANN issues. Many organisations are also facing the challenges of the Internet and Social Media, persons able to find technical knowledge online and network directly with like minded individuals without joining "formal" organisations. - The marketing of ICANN At-Large as a result is also confusing as it foremost focuses on organisations joining rather than individuals, the latter often joining in an ad-hoc manner. - 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. - For countries with zero At-Large presence, individuals that may have an interest in Internet end user issues have an obstacle of forming a group first to then participate in At-Large. - This is cumbersome and confusing with no obvious benefit. Its why groups in ICANN like NCUC which are easier to join (and market) appear to be more successful. - The replacement idea of online At-Large Chapters would unite users, individuals, organisation members as a Special Interest Group, the Interest being to focus on ICANN activites as it relates to the interests of Internet end users. - The marketing becomes much simpler - have an interest, join the online At-Large Chapter in your country. Building relationships with other stakeholders (eg ccNSO) in country would also become easier. 2. I don't know about many ISOC chapters but based on the few I am familiar with, I doubt ISOC chapter is as successful as such, especially in the area of sourcing diverse input into a global process. Don't get me wrong, I am an ISOC member and this is not to play down on the ORG but to recognise that even as they strive to improve there will always be participation challenge which isn't anyone's fault (when it gets to certain level) - Indeed, the challenges of managing the bureaucracy of a organisation can drain the few volunteers in organisation that strive to fulfill the work of the organisation. Often those passionate few persons working in the organisation are the ones called on to get involved in At-Large. 3. I can assure you that the level of success that ISOC chapters may have achieved is among many things also because of the support/resources/funding that ISOC global provided to her chapters. Is ICANN ORG and community willing and ready for such commitment. Should we go into this and get blamed later? - We are getting blamed yesterday and today. :-) - The resources are primarily online ones - eg mailing list, online conference room, wiki accounts, online voting, essentially the online support offered to RALOs today. It is NOT about registering an organisation in country, paying rent fees, paying taxes as ISOC requires. The only significant dollar amount that could be needed would be for public outreach activites of the At-Large Chapter and that could be covered by the type of funding of local outreach activites project implemented for FY17. 4. Currently the only significant things we do for ALSes is an opportunity to have one global meeting at every ATLAS event and in if some RALOs are lucky they get to bring their ALS reps to one ICANN event in their region. Based on this, we already have significant noise that ICANN already spend too much on AtLarge, you can't imagine what we will get if it were chapters because maintaining a chapter isn't cheap (especially if it's to effective) - Again, its not as expensive. Its the same support offered to RALOs, but done at the country/territory level. 5. It's easier to sell ISOC chapter to a country/Netizen than to sell an AtLarge chapter, so I see a significant marketing challenge there. - Indeed, ISOC chapters compete with local organisations for mindshare. And persons in an At-Large chapter can be involved in whatever organisations they want to be in, be it ISOC or otherwise. - Think of the At-Large Chapter as a online Special Interest Group per country. 6. ISOC chapters isn't just a virtual setup and getting an ISOC chapter up and running indeed requires legal documentation locally. If we think it will be easy to get someone interested in not just leading a team but going through that process then we should go interview some countries/localities who are still trying to get their ISOC chapter up and running (bear in mind that ISOC is more marketable). - Again, its not about registering companies in countries, the At-Large chapters are virtual, just like RALOs are today. 7. The current ALS is somewhat based on freewill hence ICANN/AtLarge has no serious obligation to ensure the ALS remain alive as the organisation runs independently. However once we put AtLarge on that path of chapters, we would have signed up for more upbringing responsibilities which would result to more administrative responsibilities (was ITEMS mentioning there is too much internal processes in current structure, wait for what is to come if we go chapter route). - But the metrics and tracking of involvement of the persons in an At-Large Chapter becomes much, much more easier to ICANN to audit. The processes and rules for each online At-Large Chapter will be consistent. At-Large becomes more accountable and transparent. Dev Anand On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Dev,

As much as I think what you've said is interesting, I doubt it's what AtLarge require as an improvement. A few question/comments comes to mind as I read through your proposal:

1. What is wrong with the current ALS structure that the "ISOC chapter like" setup as a replacement would address? If this is with regards to individual membership, isn't some RALOs already doing that? What can we learn from their experience and how can we improve on it sounds like a way forward to me.

2. I don't know about many ISOC chapters but based on the few I am familiar with, I doubt ISOC chapter is as successful as such, especially in the area of sourcing diverse input into a global process. Don't get me wrong, I am an ISOC member and this is not to play down on the ORG but to recognise that even as they strive to improve there will always be participation challenge which isn't anyone's fault (when it gets to certain level)

3. I can assure you that the level of success that ISOC chapters may have achieved is among many things also because of the support/resources/funding that ISOC global provided to her chapters. Is ICANN ORG and community willing and ready for such commitment. Should we go into this and get blamed later?

4. Currently the only significant things we do for ALSes is an opportunity to have one global meeting at every ATLAS event and in if some RALOs are lucky they get to bring their ALS reps to one ICANN event in their region. Based on this, we already have significant noise that ICANN already spend too much on AtLarge, you can't imagine what we will get if it were chapters because maintaining a chapter isn't cheap (especially if it's to effective)

5. It's easier to sell ISOC chapter to a country/Netizen than to sell an AtLarge chapter, so I see a significant marketing challenge there.

6. ISOC chapters isn't just a virtual setup and getting an ISOC chapter up and running indeed requires legal documentation locally. If we think it will be easy to get someone interested in not just leading a team but going through that process then we should go interview some countries/localities who are still trying to get their ISOC chapter up and running (bear in mind that ISOC is more marketable).

7. The current ALS is somewhat based on freewill hence ICANN/AtLarge has no serious obligation to ensure the ALS remain alive as the organisation runs independently. However once we put AtLarge on that path of chapters, we would have signed up for more upbringing responsibilities which would result to more administrative responsibilities (was ITEMS mentioning there is too much internal processes in current structure, wait for what is to come if we go chapter route).

Overall maybe it may have been good to have a chapter like AtLarge in the early 2000 before the community reduced AtLarge to a single Board Member organisation and with advisory capacity, I doubt such is realistic in the present ICANN not because it will not receive support of the community but because it doesn't sound sustainable!

Regards

Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Feb 13, 2017 15:05, "Dev Anand Teelucksingh" <devtee@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Here's an idea for an alternative proposal for At-Large to the EMM model proposed in the At-Large Review

My thoughts - The proposed EMM has flaws. Some immediate ones :

- it destroys the community and with that, the consensus building of community with replacement of individuals with even less ties to the public community. Such individuals will promote and collude with other individuals to keep themselves in the loop. Also, with many of the policy discussions in GNSO being English, this permanently eliminates persons from developing/emerging economies from non-English from ever participating. - given that any individual could already participate in GNSO, we would be no different from such random individuals - it removes the mandate on oversight and accountability on ICANN activities from end user interests - a thousand individuals in one large country will override 10 individuals from a small country so there will be less diversity in the EMM model only from those countries with large number of individuals. - Nomcom appointees to ALAC new to ICANN will serve as Liasions to other groups is not sensible

There are many more problems but I want to focus on a IMO a better At-Large model than the EMM one:

- ICANN establishes At-Large Chapters in each country similiar in concept to Rotary or ISOC chapters. - each chapter is open to anyone interested in ICANN from the interests of end users. - ICANN can set guidelines for each chapter - some examples: must do certain level of outreach, have term limits, have a public F2F awareness meeting to recruit new persons. ICANN would need to provide some funding to make this happen but this would be small and the chapters can account to ICANN for expenses. - ICANN can provide the tools (mailing lists, conference tools) to facilitate online discussions. - Because there is a consistent brand - At-Large Chapter in the country, marketing/promoting is greatly simplified and easier to explain. - Given that such chapters are virtual, it makes chapters easy to establish with only a few individuals from a country without the challenges of having formal organisations with bylaws and pay taxes.

So an At-Large chapter ends up being a virtual ALS in each country in the ALAC/RALO/ALS model.

The RALOs will consist of the chapters from each country in the region with each chapter electing two persons to coordinate the RALO work. The RALO will be better positioned to better fulfil its MOUs with ICANN and the RALO and ALAC would not have to bother with analysing whether an organisation meets the criteria of an ALS.

The At-Large chapters will be better able to network with At-Large chapters in other countries and build consensus on policy issues and help promote and grow the At-Large Community.

--- Dev Anand

_______________________________________________ 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/di splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

Hi everyone I think the country chapter has merit. And for this I use the example of the APRALO ALS, the Internet Society of China. Although their model is based on a political expectation of coordinating all the internet users of the country within one system, there is a separate leadership which coordinates and manages the whole organisation, and that leadership represents China's internet users and are the primary contacts with At-Large and ICANN. China's size requires a system which is run like a major corporation. However, despite the difference in size of its internet user population in comparison with other countries, my own as an example, I believe that there are some features of the internal coordination of ISC that could be replicated elsewhere. It is a well-oiled machine. Using a similar model within a democratic context, organisational members (like our current ALSes, and other internet-related organisations) as well as individuals, could belong to the country chapter and could also choose/elect their country leaders as their representatives in their RALO of ICANN. Having the organisational aspects coordinated in-country would take the administrative onus off the ICANN/ALAC system (and staff) so that they would be dealing with the leaders of end-users of each country as an advisory source on end-user issues for the ALAC, just as Internet Leaders of country Governments do within the GAC. Both systems are still only advisory sources. They don't actually write policy, only contribute to it. But in order for the country model to be acceptable and effective, ICANN would have to put by-laws and other expectations of country membership in place to ensure that country chapters, if we were to have such a system, would operate with the same rights and freedoms that we are attempting to ensure at a country level for the Internet. So that participation in the systems at country level must also be open and transparent and all its members (individual or organisational) will be able to contribute in some meaningful way with each other and to provide feedback towards At-Large's contribution to ICANN policy via the ALAC. But the organisation of this would be internal. I think it would be too unwieldy for ALAC or ICANN to take on the coordination of individual members open slather. 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. I think that ALSes could take more responsibility for the recruitment and coordination of individual members at a local level - outreach would be more effective locally and at regional level. But the value of ALSes for me, is that mulitple ALSes from one country would allow for diversity of different interest groups bringing their collective views to regional level and then to the ALAC as opposed to the one-size-fits-all country model of contribution to policy discussions. Maureen On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks Dev, based on your response, I then like to focus on item 1; the problem statement. Kindly find comments inline:

Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Feb 15, 2017 2:53 AM, "Dev Anand Teelucksingh" <devtee@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Seun, to respond to your questions/comments:

1. What is wrong with the current ALS structure that the "ISOC chapter like" setup as a replacement would address? If this is with regards to individual membership, isn't some RALOs already doing that? What can we learn from their experience and how can we improve on it sounds like a way forward to me.

- A lot of time and energy is used in At-Large to "certifying" organisations as At-large Structures, whether organisations are end user focused, are organisations legitimate, how much members it has, what are the bylaws of the organisation - it takes months, sometimes years for an organisation to become accredited as an At-Large Structure with the ultimate end result being one or two persons in an organisation having the volunteer time, energy, passion to be involved in At-Large whilst serving their organisation. That's because many organisations' (including ISOC chapters) reason for being is not singularly focused on the narrow remit of ICANN issues.

SO: Based on what is stated above, will reviewing the certification requirement address the problem?

Many organisations are also facing the challenges of the Internet and Social Media, persons able to find technical knowledge online and network directly with like minded individuals without joining "formal" organisations.

SO: Okay this seem to refer to individual membership which as you know is being attended to by some RALOs already (but ofcourse can be improved). On the other hand there are also people on AtLarge who are not even Members of any ALS at the moment so do you not think the current structure already provide accommodation for such individual who doesn't want a formal involvement?

- The marketing of ICANN At-Large as a result is also confusing as it foremost focuses on organisations joining rather than individuals, the latter often joining in an ad-hoc manner.

SO: I totally agree with this point, and this will then call for reviewing our outreach strategy. It makes absolute sense to reachout to individuals instead, get them to join as individuals, when they are in, they themselves can decide to take it a step further by inviting their organisation and having them join.

- 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.

SO: Hmm...While I see your point, I think the other point is that current structure in some RALOs doesn't have option for individual hence an existing ALS is only motivated to encourage other organisations to join as an ALS which indeed can take time and make it discouraging. Still goes back to comment made above about making provisions for individual membership.

- For countries with zero At-Large presence, individuals that may have an interest in Internet end user issues have an obstacle of forming a group first to then participate in At-Large.

SO: Indeed, same Comment as above.

- This is cumbersome and confusing with no obvious benefit. Its why groups in ICANN like NCUC which are easier to join (and market) appear to be more successful.

- The replacement idea of online At-Large Chapters would unite users, individuals, organisation members as a Special Interest Group, the Interest being to focus on ICANN activites as it relates to the interests of Internet end users.

SO: If the AtLarge chapters is just the title we want to use to accommodate individual membership, so instead of having just one ALS like organisation that serves as umbrella for all individuals interested to join (as some RALOs have done) we setup country chapters and have individuals join through that while the ALS continues. The other option for a start could be to have a chapter per RALO and then have country chapters formed once the membership in the RALO chapter from a particular country reach certain number. Overall I personally feel going this route will bring about more "online" administrative work but I will be fine if we are in for that.

- The marketing becomes much simpler - have an interest, join the online At-Large Chapter in your country. Building relationships with other stakeholders (eg ccNSO) in country would also become easier.

SO: Dev I am sure you know that current ALS/RALO is actually online (once the accreditation hurdle is passed), so I think onus of the whole issue is more about providing a means for individual membership to join formerly.

Regards

2. I don't know about many ISOC chapters but based on the few I am familiar with, I doubt ISOC chapter is as successful as such, especially in the area of sourcing diverse input into a global process. Don't get me wrong, I am an ISOC member and this is not to play down on the ORG but to recognise that even as they strive to improve there will always be participation challenge which isn't anyone's fault (when it gets to certain level)

- Indeed, the challenges of managing the bureaucracy of a organisation can drain the few volunteers in organisation that strive to fulfill the work of the organisation. Often those passionate few persons working in the organisation are the ones called on to get involved in At-Large.

3. I can assure you that the level of success that ISOC chapters may have achieved is among many things also because of the support/resources/funding that ISOC global provided to her chapters. Is ICANN ORG and community willing and ready for such commitment. Should we go into this and get blamed later?

- We are getting blamed yesterday and today. :-) - The resources are primarily online ones - eg mailing list, online conference room, wiki accounts, online voting, essentially the online support offered to RALOs today. It is NOT about registering an organisation in country, paying rent fees, paying taxes as ISOC requires. The only significant dollar amount that could be needed would be for public outreach activites of the At-Large Chapter and that could be covered by the type of funding of local outreach activites project implemented for FY17.

4. Currently the only significant things we do for ALSes is an opportunity to have one global meeting at every ATLAS event and in if some RALOs are lucky they get to bring their ALS reps to one ICANN event in their region. Based on this, we already have significant noise that ICANN already spend too much on AtLarge, you can't imagine what we will get if it were chapters because maintaining a chapter isn't cheap (especially if it's to effective)

- Again, its not as expensive. Its the same support offered to RALOs, but done at the country/territory level.

5. It's easier to sell ISOC chapter to a country/Netizen than to sell an AtLarge chapter, so I see a significant marketing challenge there.

- Indeed, ISOC chapters compete with local organisations for mindshare. And persons in an At-Large chapter can be involved in whatever organisations they want to be in, be it ISOC or otherwise. - Think of the At-Large Chapter as a online Special Interest Group per country.

6. ISOC chapters isn't just a virtual setup and getting an ISOC chapter up and running indeed requires legal documentation locally. If we think it will be easy to get someone interested in not just leading a team but going through that process then we should go interview some countries/localities who are still trying to get their ISOC chapter up and running (bear in mind that ISOC is more marketable).

- Again, its not about registering companies in countries, the At-Large chapters are virtual, just like RALOs are today.

7. The current ALS is somewhat based on freewill hence ICANN/AtLarge has no serious obligation to ensure the ALS remain alive as the organisation runs independently. However once we put AtLarge on that path of chapters, we would have signed up for more upbringing responsibilities which would result to more administrative responsibilities (was ITEMS mentioning there is too much internal processes in current structure, wait for what is to come if we go chapter route).

- But the metrics and tracking of involvement of the persons in an At-Large Chapter becomes much, much more easier to ICANN to audit. The processes and rules for each online At-Large Chapter will be consistent. At-Large becomes more accountable and transparent.

Dev Anand

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hello Dev,

As much as I think what you've said is interesting, I doubt it's what AtLarge require as an improvement. A few question/comments comes to mind as I read through your proposal:

1. What is wrong with the current ALS structure that the "ISOC chapter like" setup as a replacement would address? If this is with regards to individual membership, isn't some RALOs already doing that? What can we learn from their experience and how can we improve on it sounds like a way forward to me.

2. I don't know about many ISOC chapters but based on the few I am familiar with, I doubt ISOC chapter is as successful as such, especially in the area of sourcing diverse input into a global process. Don't get me wrong, I am an ISOC member and this is not to play down on the ORG but to recognise that even as they strive to improve there will always be participation challenge which isn't anyone's fault (when it gets to certain level)

3. I can assure you that the level of success that ISOC chapters may have achieved is among many things also because of the support/resources/funding that ISOC global provided to her chapters. Is ICANN ORG and community willing and ready for such commitment. Should we go into this and get blamed later?

4. Currently the only significant things we do for ALSes is an opportunity to have one global meeting at every ATLAS event and in if some RALOs are lucky they get to bring their ALS reps to one ICANN event in their region. Based on this, we already have significant noise that ICANN already spend too much on AtLarge, you can't imagine what we will get if it were chapters because maintaining a chapter isn't cheap (especially if it's to effective)

5. It's easier to sell ISOC chapter to a country/Netizen than to sell an AtLarge chapter, so I see a significant marketing challenge there.

6. ISOC chapters isn't just a virtual setup and getting an ISOC chapter up and running indeed requires legal documentation locally. If we think it will be easy to get someone interested in not just leading a team but going through that process then we should go interview some countries/localities who are still trying to get their ISOC chapter up and running (bear in mind that ISOC is more marketable).

7. The current ALS is somewhat based on freewill hence ICANN/AtLarge has no serious obligation to ensure the ALS remain alive as the organisation runs independently. However once we put AtLarge on that path of chapters, we would have signed up for more upbringing responsibilities which would result to more administrative responsibilities (was ITEMS mentioning there is too much internal processes in current structure, wait for what is to come if we go chapter route).

Overall maybe it may have been good to have a chapter like AtLarge in the early 2000 before the community reduced AtLarge to a single Board Member organisation and with advisory capacity, I doubt such is realistic in the present ICANN not because it will not receive support of the community but because it doesn't sound sustainable!

Regards

Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Feb 13, 2017 15:05, "Dev Anand Teelucksingh" <devtee@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Here's an idea for an alternative proposal for At-Large to the EMM model proposed in the At-Large Review

My thoughts - The proposed EMM has flaws. Some immediate ones :

- it destroys the community and with that, the consensus building of community with replacement of individuals with even less ties to the public community. Such individuals will promote and collude with other individuals to keep themselves in the loop. Also, with many of the policy discussions in GNSO being English, this permanently eliminates persons from developing/emerging economies from non-English from ever participating. - given that any individual could already participate in GNSO, we would be no different from such random individuals - it removes the mandate on oversight and accountability on ICANN activities from end user interests - a thousand individuals in one large country will override 10 individuals from a small country so there will be less diversity in the EMM model only from those countries with large number of individuals. - Nomcom appointees to ALAC new to ICANN will serve as Liasions to other groups is not sensible

There are many more problems but I want to focus on a IMO a better At-Large model than the EMM one:

- ICANN establishes At-Large Chapters in each country similiar in concept to Rotary or ISOC chapters. - each chapter is open to anyone interested in ICANN from the interests of end users. - ICANN can set guidelines for each chapter - some examples: must do certain level of outreach, have term limits, have a public F2F awareness meeting to recruit new persons. ICANN would need to provide some funding to make this happen but this would be small and the chapters can account to ICANN for expenses. - ICANN can provide the tools (mailing lists, conference tools) to facilitate online discussions. - Because there is a consistent brand - At-Large Chapter in the country, marketing/promoting is greatly simplified and easier to explain. - Given that such chapters are virtual, it makes chapters easy to establish with only a few individuals from a country without the challenges of having formal organisations with bylaws and pay taxes.

So an At-Large chapter ends up being a virtual ALS in each country in the ALAC/RALO/ALS model.

The RALOs will consist of the chapters from each country in the region with each chapter electing two persons to coordinate the RALO work. The RALO will be better positioned to better fulfil its MOUs with ICANN and the RALO and ALAC would not have to bother with analysing whether an organisation meets the criteria of an ALS.

The At-Large chapters will be better able to network with At-Large chapters in other countries and build consensus on policy issues and help promote and grow the At-Large Community.

--- Dev Anand

_______________________________________________ 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/di splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

_______________________________________________ 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+(ALAC)

According to Maureen and Winthrop in preference over the current ALS model over the ISOC model. The ISOC-style country unification model could be allowed to unify all individual Internet users who did not participate in an ALs. There, the two systems would coexist: on the one hand all the ALs of a country and on the other side ISOC, as a separate organization, representing the individual voices of the individual users of that country that do not integrate any ALs. But the direct voice of the ALS in ICANN seems to me preferable and more transparent because it is the expression of different internal groups within the same country, which are sometimes quite different or have different interests. If these voices have to be agreed upon in a single voice, the expression of their interests is nullified, because they have to be agreed upon in a single voice and therefore would not be reflecting exactly the position of the different parties that comprise it, different parts of the community of Internet. Aída Noblia 2017-02-15 7:49 GMT-03:00 Winthrop Yu <w.yu@gmx.net>:

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

-- Aida Noblia

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

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 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 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<mailto: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<tel:%2B55%2011%203266.6253> Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464<tel:%2B%2055%2011%2098181.1464> Sorry for any typos. HAPPY 2017! On 2/15/17, 8:49 AM, "at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Winthrop Yu" <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of w.yu@gmx.net<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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

If the objective is to manage an infrastructure of chapters in each country and to produce policy input to ICANN, why not just outsource that entire task to ISOC which already has this all in place (which also means giving the At-Large maintenance budget to ISOC)? I have yet to encounter a realm in which ISOC HQ, its chapters and ICANN At-Large writ-large are significantly out of sync on ICANN directions. At the end of the day, beyond the structures and assemblies and brochures and georegional politics ... the goal of this whole exercise is to 1. Provide policy input to ICANN indicating (with at least a good-faith stab at accuracy) needs and impacts relating to its activity that affects global end-users (ie, "the billions") 2. Provide said global audience with enough quality information about ICANN activity to enable its policy input to be well informed. Until we get back to Karl's desired return to direct elections by the public of the Board (with which I agree), this is the limit of what the existing structure is able to do. The rest of it is, generally speaking, window dressing and diversionary in feel-good way. - Evan

Hi, the discussion about criteria for ALSes is about honesty: honestly representing or conveying the principles and views relevant to individual users of the Internet, honestly working to develop a credible contribution in the ICANN policy process, and honestly using the massive resources that are applied to the process. It is about accountability coming from those who demand it from ICANN's Board and staff but don't provide it about themselves. It is about not gaming the system to maximize access to the resources. Some empirical tests have been made, you know the results. Let's start with the parts of the ITEMS report that point to real, existing problems and solve those first. Let's look at the proportions in which real contributions are made which actually get reflected - or rejected, but first of all proposed - in the policy the At Large representation system is supposed to develop in favor of the aforesaid users. And let us reflect on a honest comparison between the different alternatives, especially using known tests. 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 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 Dev Anand Teelucksingh [devtee@gmail.com] Enviado el: jueves, 16 de febrero de 2017 10:35 Hasta: Seun Ojedeji CC: ALAC Working List; At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Idea for an alternative to the EMM proposed in the At-Large Review Hi, Seun, Re: certification requirements, I don't think so, the comments so far seem to favour a more tighter, rigid control of what is a "proper" organisation and seeking to get rid of organisations and its members that don't make the cut (too small, not educated enough, not "end user" focused), giving rise to a elitism where those "approved" organisations/members look down on persons from "non-approved" organisations. Re: individual members, there also seems to be a sentiment that such individuals should be treated as less equal than individuals from an organisation in At-Large. No amount of outreach will help if individuals that join At-Large aren't being fully accepted in At-Large, compared to individuals from organisations in At-Large. Dev Anand On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 1:53 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks Dev, based on your response, I then like to focus on item 1; the problem statement. Kindly find comments inline: Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Feb 15, 2017 2:53 AM, "Dev Anand Teelucksingh" <devtee@gmail.com<mailto:devtee@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello Seun, to respond to your questions/comments: 1. What is wrong with the current ALS structure that the "ISOC chapter like" setup as a replacement would address? If this is with regards to individual membership, isn't some RALOs already doing that? What can we learn from their experience and how can we improve on it sounds like a way forward to me. - A lot of time and energy is used in At-Large to "certifying" organisations as At-large Structures, whether organisations are end user focused, are organisations legitimate, how much members it has, what are the bylaws of the organisation - it takes months, sometimes years for an organisation to become accredited as an At-Large Structure with the ultimate end result being one or two persons in an organisation having the volunteer time, energy, passion to be involved in At-Large whilst serving their organisation. That's because many organisations' (including ISOC chapters) reason for being is not singularly focused on the narrow remit of ICANN issues. SO: Based on what is stated above, will reviewing the certification requirement address the problem? Many organisations are also facing the challenges of the Internet and Social Media, persons able to find technical knowledge online and network directly with like minded individuals without joining "formal" organisations. SO: Okay this seem to refer to individual membership which as you know is being attended to by some RALOs already (but ofcourse can be improved). On the other hand there are also people on AtLarge who are not even Members of any ALS at the moment so do you not think the current structure already provide accommodation for such individual who doesn't want a formal involvement? - The marketing of ICANN At-Large as a result is also confusing as it foremost focuses on organisations joining rather than individuals, the latter often joining in an ad-hoc manner. SO: I totally agree with this point, and this will then call for reviewing our outreach strategy. It makes absolute sense to reachout to individuals instead, get them to join as individuals, when they are in, they themselves can decide to take it a step further by inviting their organisation and having them join. - 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. SO: Hmm...While I see your point, I think the other point is that current structure in some RALOs doesn't have option for individual hence an existing ALS is only motivated to encourage other organisations to join as an ALS which indeed can take time and make it discouraging. Still goes back to comment made above about making provisions for individual membership. - For countries with zero At-Large presence, individuals that may have an interest in Internet end user issues have an obstacle of forming a group first to then participate in At-Large. SO: Indeed, same Comment as above. - This is cumbersome and confusing with no obvious benefit. Its why groups in ICANN like NCUC which are easier to join (and market) appear to be more successful. - The replacement idea of online At-Large Chapters would unite users, individuals, organisation members as a Special Interest Group, the Interest being to focus on ICANN activites as it relates to the interests of Internet end users. SO: If the AtLarge chapters is just the title we want to use to accommodate individual membership, so instead of having just one ALS like organisation that serves as umbrella for all individuals interested to join (as some RALOs have done) we setup country chapters and have individuals join through that while the ALS continues. The other option for a start could be to have a chapter per RALO and then have country chapters formed once the membership in the RALO chapter from a particular country reach certain number. Overall I personally feel going this route will bring about more "online" administrative work but I will be fine if we are in for that. - The marketing becomes much simpler - have an interest, join the online At-Large Chapter in your country. Building relationships with other stakeholders (eg ccNSO) in country would also become easier. SO: Dev I am sure you know that current ALS/RALO is actually online (once the accreditation hurdle is passed), so I think onus of the whole issue is more about providing a means for individual membership to join formerly. Regards 2. I don't know about many ISOC chapters but based on the few I am familiar with, I doubt ISOC chapter is as successful as such, especially in the area of sourcing diverse input into a global process. Don't get me wrong, I am an ISOC member and this is not to play down on the ORG but to recognise that even as they strive to improve there will always be participation challenge which isn't anyone's fault (when it gets to certain level) - Indeed, the challenges of managing the bureaucracy of a organisation can drain the few volunteers in organisation that strive to fulfill the work of the organisation. Often those passionate few persons working in the organisation are the ones called on to get involved in At-Large. 3. I can assure you that the level of success that ISOC chapters may have achieved is among many things also because of the support/resources/funding that ISOC global provided to her chapters. Is ICANN ORG and community willing and ready for such commitment. Should we go into this and get blamed later? - We are getting blamed yesterday and today. :-) - The resources are primarily online ones - eg mailing list, online conference room, wiki accounts, online voting, essentially the online support offered to RALOs today. It is NOT about registering an organisation in country, paying rent fees, paying taxes as ISOC requires. The only significant dollar amount that could be needed would be for public outreach activites of the At-Large Chapter and that could be covered by the type of funding of local outreach activites project implemented for FY17. 4. Currently the only significant things we do for ALSes is an opportunity to have one global meeting at every ATLAS event and in if some RALOs are lucky they get to bring their ALS reps to one ICANN event in their region. Based on this, we already have significant noise that ICANN already spend too much on AtLarge, you can't imagine what we will get if it were chapters because maintaining a chapter isn't cheap (especially if it's to effective) - Again, its not as expensive. Its the same support offered to RALOs, but done at the country/territory level. 5. It's easier to sell ISOC chapter to a country/Netizen than to sell an AtLarge chapter, so I see a significant marketing challenge there. - Indeed, ISOC chapters compete with local organisations for mindshare. And persons in an At-Large chapter can be involved in whatever organisations they want to be in, be it ISOC or otherwise. - Think of the At-Large Chapter as a online Special Interest Group per country. 6. ISOC chapters isn't just a virtual setup and getting an ISOC chapter up and running indeed requires legal documentation locally. If we think it will be easy to get someone interested in not just leading a team but going through that process then we should go interview some countries/localities who are still trying to get their ISOC chapter up and running (bear in mind that ISOC is more marketable). - Again, its not about registering companies in countries, the At-Large chapters are virtual, just like RALOs are today. 7. The current ALS is somewhat based on freewill hence ICANN/AtLarge has no serious obligation to ensure the ALS remain alive as the organisation runs independently. However once we put AtLarge on that path of chapters, we would have signed up for more upbringing responsibilities which would result to more administrative responsibilities (was ITEMS mentioning there is too much internal processes in current structure, wait for what is to come if we go chapter route). - But the metrics and tracking of involvement of the persons in an At-Large Chapter becomes much, much more easier to ICANN to audit. The processes and rules for each online At-Large Chapter will be consistent. At-Large becomes more accountable and transparent. Dev Anand On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello Dev, As much as I think what you've said is interesting, I doubt it's what AtLarge require as an improvement. A few question/comments comes to mind as I read through your proposal: 1. What is wrong with the current ALS structure that the "ISOC chapter like" setup as a replacement would address? If this is with regards to individual membership, isn't some RALOs already doing that? What can we learn from their experience and how can we improve on it sounds like a way forward to me. 2. I don't know about many ISOC chapters but based on the few I am familiar with, I doubt ISOC chapter is as successful as such, especially in the area of sourcing diverse input into a global process. Don't get me wrong, I am an ISOC member and this is not to play down on the ORG but to recognise that even as they strive to improve there will always be participation challenge which isn't anyone's fault (when it gets to certain level) 3. I can assure you that the level of success that ISOC chapters may have achieved is among many things also because of the support/resources/funding that ISOC global provided to her chapters. Is ICANN ORG and community willing and ready for such commitment. Should we go into this and get blamed later? 4. Currently the only significant things we do for ALSes is an opportunity to have one global meeting at every ATLAS event and in if some RALOs are lucky they get to bring their ALS reps to one ICANN event in their region. Based on this, we already have significant noise that ICANN already spend too much on AtLarge, you can't imagine what we will get if it were chapters because maintaining a chapter isn't cheap (especially if it's to effective) 5. It's easier to sell ISOC chapter to a country/Netizen than to sell an AtLarge chapter, so I see a significant marketing challenge there. 6. ISOC chapters isn't just a virtual setup and getting an ISOC chapter up and running indeed requires legal documentation locally. If we think it will be easy to get someone interested in not just leading a team but going through that process then we should go interview some countries/localities who are still trying to get their ISOC chapter up and running (bear in mind that ISOC is more marketable). 7. The current ALS is somewhat based on freewill hence ICANN/AtLarge has no serious obligation to ensure the ALS remain alive as the organisation runs independently. However once we put AtLarge on that path of chapters, we would have signed up for more upbringing responsibilities which would result to more administrative responsibilities (was ITEMS mentioning there is too much internal processes in current structure, wait for what is to come if we go chapter route). Overall maybe it may have been good to have a chapter like AtLarge in the early 2000 before the community reduced AtLarge to a single Board Member organisation and with advisory capacity, I doubt such is realistic in the present ICANN not because it will not receive support of the community but because it doesn't sound sustainable! Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Feb 13, 2017 15:05, "Dev Anand Teelucksingh" <devtee@gmail.com<mailto:devtee@gmail.com>> wrote: Here's an idea for an alternative proposal for At-Large to the EMM model proposed in the At-Large Review My thoughts - The proposed EMM has flaws. Some immediate ones : - it destroys the community and with that, the consensus building of community with replacement of individuals with even less ties to the public community. Such individuals will promote and collude with other individuals to keep themselves in the loop. Also, with many of the policy discussions in GNSO being English, this permanently eliminates persons from developing/emerging economies from non-English from ever participating. - given that any individual could already participate in GNSO, we would be no different from such random individuals - it removes the mandate on oversight and accountability on ICANN activities from end user interests - a thousand individuals in one large country will override 10 individuals from a small country so there will be less diversity in the EMM model only from those countries with large number of individuals. - Nomcom appointees to ALAC new to ICANN will serve as Liasions to other groups is not sensible There are many more problems but I want to focus on a IMO a better At-Large model than the EMM one: - ICANN establishes At-Large Chapters in each country similiar in concept to Rotary or ISOC chapters. - each chapter is open to anyone interested in ICANN from the interests of end users. - ICANN can set guidelines for each chapter - some examples: must do certain level of outreach, have term limits, have a public F2F awareness meeting to recruit new persons. ICANN would need to provide some funding to make this happen but this would be small and the chapters can account to ICANN for expenses. - ICANN can provide the tools (mailing lists, conference tools) to facilitate online discussions. - Because there is a consistent brand - At-Large Chapter in the country, marketing/promoting is greatly simplified and easier to explain. - Given that such chapters are virtual, it makes chapters easy to establish with only a few individuals from a country without the challenges of having formal organisations with bylaws and pay taxes. So an At-Large chapter ends up being a virtual ALS in each country in the ALAC/RALO/ALS model. The RALOs will consist of the chapters from each country in the region with each chapter electing two persons to coordinate the RALO work. The RALO will be better positioned to better fulfil its MOUs with ICANN and the RALO and ALAC would not have to bother with analysing whether an organisation meets the criteria of an ALS. The At-Large chapters will be better able to network with At-Large chapters in other countries and build consensus on policy issues and help promote and grow the At-Large Community. [X] --- Dev Anand _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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...)