Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Idea for an alternative to the EMM proposed in the At-Large Review
If this, or any other major reorganization of At-Large is to happen, it will need to be with careful planning and attention to details. One of the major flaws of the ITEMS EMM is that it glosses over "details" that are in fact major issues. Two examples are just how is it that people will suddenly know about us and flock here and exactly how do we recognize and track "active" individuals. In this model the questions are different. Here are just a few of them: - Just who is it in ICANN who will establish and organize these chapters, and who will carry out any formalities that are needed to allow them to exist (such as incorporation or creating Bylaws that may be required in some jurisdictions) - How do you ensure that they do not wither following the exuberance of creating them (a major problem with ISOC Chapters)? - How do you handle disputes that may arise between different factions in a country? - How do we transition from where we are now to this new model, without losing the relatively few hard workers we have in each country? This may well be a viable model, and certainly one that could have been created at the start. Given the knowledge of the ISOC Chapter model, I have no doubt it was seriously considered. If it is going to be sold, it needs to be pretty bullet-proof. Alan At 13/02/2017 09:04 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:OlX6aU+5ilJYGkCWBr9VC+nQMTZ5q/p8UnI3T/Mu/bC4A5V8b6iXOxCxXT5WLXkkGfp+Ms3PkGdL88763uaqZMnaYlIy2fgUoJPagXmx9AMCDiOLcs80hUeDAIVCL9mk53bgDc4GNivpTix9SZwYGw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028);
_______________________________________________ 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...)
I share what Vanda, Seoul, Alan said. On the contrary to current general trends, part of the teamwork that is done tends to be replaced in part by individual work. I share with Vanda the concern for RALOS and the appearance of these rapporteurs who are not like representatives of the RALOS people who belong to the community, represent it and are active in it community. The rapporteurs may bring to the ALAC a summary of their impressions but are not mandated by the community. RALOS are conceived "as an information conduit and facilitators ...) who" disseminate information from ICANN, promote the participation of its members and channel the regional user's point of view to ICANN. "Would RALOS (and their authorities) then come into contact (or are they or represent) the Internet end users and not the" rapporteurs "? Or both? Replace in part the rapporteurs on RALOS or overlap its functions? Is there a greater separation between the community of Internet users and ALAC? It is very difficult in a short time such a stirring proposal, that it changes so radically the current structure. I think needs improvement is the functioning, within the current structure. Do not change the structures, which as Alan says requires a thorough and detailed work. Besides: it is not the structure that fails, as mentioned by Seoul. . There are many problems and many policies to think and resolve at ICANN now to change this complex aspect and deal with its proper functioning. There are not enough workforces for everything. It is a crucial moment. There are problems of domains, jurisdiction, human rights ...we need all our time for that issues. Regards 2017-02-13 15:32 GMT-03:00 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>:
If this, or any other major reorganization of At-Large is to happen, it will need to be with careful planning and attention to details.
One of the major flaws of the ITEMS EMM is that it glosses over "details" that are in fact major issues. Two examples are just how is it that people will suddenly know about us and flock here and exactly how do we recognize and track "active" individuals.
In this model the questions are different. Here are just a few of them:
- Just who is it in ICANN who will establish and organize these chapters, and who will carry out any formalities that are needed to allow them to exist (such as incorporation or creating Bylaws that may be required in some jurisdictions) - How do you ensure that they do not wither following the exuberance of creating them (a major problem with ISOC Chapters)? - How do you handle disputes that may arise between different factions in a country? - How do we transition from where we are now to this new model, without losing the relatively few hard workers we have in each country?
This may well be a viable model, and certainly one that could have been created at the start. Given the knowledge of the ISOC Chapter model, I have no doubt it was seriously considered. If it is going to be sold, it needs to be pretty bullet-proof.
Alan
At 13/02/2017 09:04 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:OlX6aU+5ilJYGkCWBr9VC+nQMTZ5q/p8UnI3T/Mu/ bC4A5V8b6iXOxCxXT5WLXkkGfp+Ms3PkGdL88763uaqZMnaYlIy2fgUoJPag Xmx9AMCDiOLcs80hUeDAIVCL9mk53bgDc4GNivpTix9SZwYGw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)( 750028);
_______________________________________________ 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)
_______________________________________________ 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
To answer Alan's questions: * Just who is it in ICANN who will establish and organize these chapters, and who will carry out any formalities that are needed to allow them to exist (such as incorporation or creating Bylaws that may be required in some jurisdictions) The chapters will be online At-Large chapters with consistent rules, criteria and process set by the ALAC and ICANN. As such, I'm not thinking these need to be registered as formal organisations in any country. Think instead of a RALO, we have a CALO (Country At-Large Organisation) with the same online support offered by ICANN that's offered to RALOs (mailing list, wiki accounts, online voting, online conference room support) * How do you ensure that they do not wither following the exuberance of creating them (a major problem with ISOC Chapters)? Because ICANN staff will run the facilities of the online At-Large Chapters, ICANN and the At-Large Community (RALO and ALAC) will have metrics as to who are the persons involved in At-Large, how often they contribute to At-Large, how policy issues are discussed, etc. Online At-Large Chapters will make At-Large become more accountable and transparent. Marketing of At-Large Chapters is greatly simplifed - join At-Large online and you're assigned to the At-Large Chapter in the country. * How do you handle disputes that may arise between different factions in a country? The same way as disputes should be handled with different factions in a RALO. * How do we transition from where we are now to this new model, without losing the relatively few hard workers we have in each country? The relatively few hard workers would not be lost. ALS representatives and members of the ALSes interested in ICANN issues from the interests of Internet end users would complete an online application form to join At-Large. If there is concern from "anyone" joining that may have conflicts of interest relating to the interests of end users, the ALAC and RALOs can do a "certified" application process, similar to how organisations become accredited At-Large Structures (RALO advice on member applications, ALAC decides whether to accept the RALO advice) Such At-Large persons accepted would then be added to the appropriate At-Large Chapter list, their RALO list, wiki accounts created (if new) by Staff. The At-Large chapter will be like an ALS in the ALAC/RALO/ALS model. The At-large chapters members can interact on policy issues, received updates from staff just as RALOs are notified, participate in WGs, just as before. The At-Large chapter would have to select a chair to act on behalf of the At-Large Chapter. The At-Large chapter can try to work by consensus to select a member to be a chair but if there are multiple nominations within the Chapter for the chair, then online elections can be held which are done by ICANN Staff. The Chair of the At-Large Chapter can participate in the RALO affairs requiring consensus support or voting on behalf of the At-Large Chapter. The At-Large Chapter members can work by consensus or have a vote if consensus can't be reached to direct the chair as to how how the At-Large Chapter will vote in RALO affairs. Dev Anand Dev Anand On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
If this, or any other major reorganization of At-Large is to happen, it will need to be with careful planning and attention to details.
One of the major flaws of the ITEMS EMM is that it glosses over "details" that are in fact major issues. Two examples are just how is it that people will suddenly know about us and flock here and exactly how do we recognize and track "active" individuals.
In this model the questions are different. Here are just a few of them:
- Just who is it in ICANN who will establish and organize these chapters, and who will carry out any formalities that are needed to allow them to exist (such as incorporation or creating Bylaws that may be required in some jurisdictions) - How do you ensure that they do not wither following the exuberance of creating them (a major problem with ISOC Chapters)? - How do you handle disputes that may arise between different factions in a country? - How do we transition from where we are now to this new model, without losing the relatively few hard workers we have in each country?
This may well be a viable model, and certainly one that could have been created at the start. Given the knowledge of the ISOC Chapter model, I have no doubt it was seriously considered. If it is going to be sold, it needs to be pretty bullet-proof.
Alan
At 13/02/2017 09:04 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:OlX6aU+5ilJYGkCWBr9VC+nQMTZ5q/p8UnI3T/Mu/ bC4A5V8b6iXOxCxXT5WLXkkGfp+Ms3PkGdL88763uaqZMnaYlIy2fgUoJPag Xmx9AMCDiOLcs80hUeDAIVCL9mk53bgDc4GNivpTix9SZwYGw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)( 750028);
_______________________________________________ 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)
I would like to add that in this model, At-Large chapters should allow organizations such as ISOC chapters or similar to join as members in these. -ed On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:27 PM Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> wrote:
To answer Alan's questions:
* Just who is it in ICANN who will establish and organize these chapters, and who will carry out any formalities that are needed to allow them to exist (such as incorporation or creating Bylaws that may be required in some jurisdictions)
The chapters will be online At-Large chapters with consistent rules, criteria and process set by the ALAC and ICANN. As such, I'm not thinking these need to be registered as formal organisations in any country. Think instead of a RALO, we have a CALO (Country At-Large Organisation) with the same online support offered by ICANN that's offered to RALOs (mailing list, wiki accounts, online voting, online conference room support)
* How do you ensure that they do not wither following the exuberance of creating them (a major problem with ISOC Chapters)?
Because ICANN staff will run the facilities of the online At-Large Chapters, ICANN and the At-Large Community (RALO and ALAC) will have metrics as to who are the persons involved in At-Large, how often they contribute to At-Large, how policy issues are discussed, etc. Online At-Large Chapters will make At-Large become more accountable and transparent. Marketing of At-Large Chapters is greatly simplifed - join At-Large online and you're assigned to the At-Large Chapter in the country.
* How do you handle disputes that may arise between different factions in a country?
The same way as disputes should be handled with different factions in a RALO.
* How do we transition from where we are now to this new model, without losing the relatively few hard workers we have in each country?
The relatively few hard workers would not be lost. ALS representatives and members of the ALSes interested in ICANN issues from the interests of Internet end users would complete an online application form to join At-Large. If there is concern from "anyone" joining that may have conflicts of interest relating to the interests of end users, the ALAC and RALOs can do a "certified" application process, similar to how organisations become accredited At-Large Structures (RALO advice on member applications, ALAC decides whether to accept the RALO advice)
Such At-Large persons accepted would then be added to the appropriate At-Large Chapter list, their RALO list, wiki accounts created (if new) by Staff.
The At-Large chapter will be like an ALS in the ALAC/RALO/ALS model.
The At-large chapters members can interact on policy issues, received updates from staff just as RALOs are notified, participate in WGs, just as before. The At-Large chapter would have to select a chair to act on behalf of the At-Large Chapter. The At-Large chapter can try to work by consensus to select a member to be a chair but if there are multiple nominations within the Chapter for the chair, then online elections can be held which are done by ICANN Staff. The Chair of the At-Large Chapter can participate in the RALO affairs requiring consensus support or voting on behalf of the At-Large Chapter. The At-Large Chapter members can work by consensus or have a vote if consensus can't be reached to direct the chair as to how how the At-Large Chapter will vote in RALO affairs.
Dev Anand
Dev Anand
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
If this, or any other major reorganization of At-Large is to happen, it will need to be with careful planning and attention to details.
One of the major flaws of the ITEMS EMM is that it glosses over "details" that are in fact major issues. Two examples are just how is it that people will suddenly know about us and flock here and exactly how do we recognize and track "active" individuals.
In this model the questions are different. Here are just a few of them:
- Just who is it in ICANN who will establish and organize these chapters, and who will carry out any formalities that are needed to allow them to exist (such as incorporation or creating Bylaws that may be required in some jurisdictions) - How do you ensure that they do not wither following the exuberance of creating them (a major problem with ISOC Chapters)? - How do you handle disputes that may arise between different factions in a country? - How do we transition from where we are now to this new model, without losing the relatively few hard workers we have in each country?
This may well be a viable model, and certainly one that could have been created at the start. Given the knowledge of the ISOC Chapter model, I have no doubt it was seriously considered. If it is going to be sold, it needs to be pretty bullet-proof.
Alan
At 13/02/2017 09:04 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:OlX6aU+5ilJYGkCWBr9VC+nQMTZ5q/p8UnI3T/Mu/bC4A5V8b6iXOxCxXT5WLXkkGfp+Ms3PkGdL88763uaqZMnaYlIy2fgUoJPagXmx9AMCDiOLcs80hUeDAIVCL9mk53bgDc4GNivpTix9SZwYGw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028);
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Yes Alberto, I know that, is very confuse that discussión. Only I am thinking how we can undesrtand the Devand others propose, and mitiigate this situation. But really the most important think is that problem between de new roles of the RALOS and ALAC... Also we have not enough time for the discusion of this very big topic with a very big change... I usually take more time for this big changes.. Excuse my English Regards Aída 2017-02-15 0:39 GMT-03:00 Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>:
I would like to add that in this model, At-Large chapters should allow organizations such as ISOC chapters or similar to join as members in these. -ed
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:27 PM Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> wrote:
To answer Alan's questions:
* Just who is it in ICANN who will establish and organize these chapters, and who will carry out any formalities that are needed to allow them to exist (such as incorporation or creating Bylaws that may be required in some jurisdictions)
The chapters will be online At-Large chapters with consistent rules, criteria and process set by the ALAC and ICANN. As such, I'm not thinking these need to be registered as formal organisations in any country. Think instead of a RALO, we have a CALO (Country At-Large Organisation) with the same online support offered by ICANN that's offered to RALOs (mailing list, wiki accounts, online voting, online conference room support)
* How do you ensure that they do not wither following the exuberance of creating them (a major problem with ISOC Chapters)?
Because ICANN staff will run the facilities of the online At-Large Chapters, ICANN and the At-Large Community (RALO and ALAC) will have metrics as to who are the persons involved in At-Large, how often they contribute to At-Large, how policy issues are discussed, etc. Online At-Large Chapters will make At-Large become more accountable and transparent. Marketing of At-Large Chapters is greatly simplifed - join At-Large online and you're assigned to the At-Large Chapter in the country.
* How do you handle disputes that may arise between different factions in a country?
The same way as disputes should be handled with different factions in a RALO.
* How do we transition from where we are now to this new model, without losing the relatively few hard workers we have in each country?
The relatively few hard workers would not be lost. ALS representatives and members of the ALSes interested in ICANN issues from the interests of Internet end users would complete an online application form to join At-Large. If there is concern from "anyone" joining that may have conflicts of interest relating to the interests of end users, the ALAC and RALOs can do a "certified" application process, similar to how organisations become accredited At-Large Structures (RALO advice on member applications, ALAC decides whether to accept the RALO advice)
Such At-Large persons accepted would then be added to the appropriate At-Large Chapter list, their RALO list, wiki accounts created (if new) by Staff.
The At-Large chapter will be like an ALS in the ALAC/RALO/ALS model.
The At-large chapters members can interact on policy issues, received updates from staff just as RALOs are notified, participate in WGs, just as before. The At-Large chapter would have to select a chair to act on behalf of the At-Large Chapter. The At-Large chapter can try to work by consensus to select a member to be a chair but if there are multiple nominations within the Chapter for the chair, then online elections can be held which are done by ICANN Staff. The Chair of the At-Large Chapter can participate in the RALO affairs requiring consensus support or voting on behalf of the At-Large Chapter. The At-Large Chapter members can work by consensus or have a vote if consensus can't be reached to direct the chair as to how how the At-Large Chapter will vote in RALO affairs.
Dev Anand
Dev Anand
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote:
If this, or any other major reorganization of At-Large is to happen, it will need to be with careful planning and attention to details.
One of the major flaws of the ITEMS EMM is that it glosses over "details" that are in fact major issues. Two examples are just how is it that people will suddenly know about us and flock here and exactly how do we recognize and track "active" individuals.
In this model the questions are different. Here are just a few of them:
- Just who is it in ICANN who will establish and organize these chapters, and who will carry out any formalities that are needed to allow them to exist (such as incorporation or creating Bylaws that may be required in some jurisdictions) - How do you ensure that they do not wither following the exuberance of creating them (a major problem with ISOC Chapters)? - How do you handle disputes that may arise between different factions in a country? - How do we transition from where we are now to this new model, without losing the relatively few hard workers we have in each country?
This may well be a viable model, and certainly one that could have been created at the start. Given the knowledge of the ISOC Chapter model, I have no doubt it was seriously considered. If it is going to be sold, it needs to be pretty bullet-proof.
Alan
At 13/02/2017 09:04 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:OlX6aU+5ilJYGkCWBr9VC+nQMTZ5q/p8UnI3T/Mu/ bC4A5V8b6iXOxCxXT5WLXkkGfp+Ms3PkGdL88763uaqZMnaYlIy2fgUoJ PagXmx9AMCDiOLcs80hUeDAIVCL9mk53bgDc4GNivpTix9SZwYGw== X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)( 520002050)(750028);
_______________________________________________ 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)
_______________________________________________ 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
Oh, No. Unincorporated on-line groups of individuals in various countries run by ICANN staff … No. CW On 15 Feb 2017, at 04:27, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> wrote:
not thinking these need to be registered as formal organisations in any country.
participants (5)
-
Aida Noblia -
Alan Greenberg -
CW Mail -
Dev Anand Teelucksingh -
Eduardo Diaz