An Alternative to the EMM model proposed in the At-Large Review
I sent this in December last year to the LACRALO members of the At-Large Review Party. It outlines an alternative to the proposed EMM model in the At-Large Review. Dev Anand ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 5:19 PM Subject: Response to the draft At-Large Review document - please consider and forward to the ITEMS or discuss in the At-Large review call To: Fatima Cambronero <fatimacambronero@gmail.com>, Alberto Soto < asoto@ibero-americano.org>, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, Vanda UOL <vanda@uol.com.br>, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> Dear All, Since time is short, I want to focus on the proposed EMM in the draft 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
Happy birthday Dev!!! Thanks a lot for this email. I recommend to use google translator to understand quickly the core of Dev's message. Regards Enviado desde mi iPhone
El 06-02-2017, a las 04:26, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> escribió:
I sent this in December last year to the LACRALO members of the At-Large Review Party. It outlines an alternative to the proposed EMM model in the At-Large Review.
Dev Anand
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 5:19 PM Subject: Response to the draft At-Large Review document - please consider and forward to the ITEMS or discuss in the At-Large review call To: Fatima Cambronero <fatimacambronero@gmail.com>, Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org>, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, Vanda UOL <vanda@uol.com.br>, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>
Dear All,
Since time is short, I want to focus on the proposed EMM in the draft 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
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
Thanks for the birthday wishes, Humberto! On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Humberto Carrasco <hcarrascob@gmail.com> wrote:
Happy birthday Dev!!!
Thanks a lot for this email. I recommend to use google translator to understand quickly the core of Dev's message.
Regards
Enviado desde mi iPhone
El 06-02-2017, a las 04:26, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> escribió:
I sent this in December last year to the LACRALO members of the At-Large Review Party. It outlines an alternative to the proposed EMM model in the At-Large Review.
Dev Anand
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 5:19 PM Subject: Response to the draft At-Large Review document - please consider and forward to the ITEMS or discuss in the At-Large review call To: Fatima Cambronero <fatimacambronero@gmail.com>, Alberto Soto < asoto@ibero-americano.org>, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, Vanda UOL <vanda@uol.com.br>, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>
Dear All,
Since time is short, I want to focus on the proposed EMM in the draft 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
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en
Dev, the proposed model of "ICANN At-Large Chapters" in each country is a step towards a membership-based ICANN, which is a no-go. It is a top-down model that creates new organizations instead of bringing together existing organizations. This is troublesome in itself and also negates the "Web of Trust" model which lies at the foundation of At-Large representation. I consider that this model is still important and that the "At-Large Chapters" model is not an improvement. I understand from your note that each country would have a single Chapter. Is that correct? Again that is not what the Rotary or ISOC do. While ISOC prefers a single chapter per country, large, diverse countries like India or Canada have more than one. And certainly Rotary have numerous clubs, sometimes even more than one in a single city. Yours, 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: lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Dev Anand Teelucksingh [devtee@gmail.com] Enviado el: lunes, 06 de febrero de 2017 06:26 Hasta: LACRALO discussion list Asunto: [lac-discuss-en] An Alternative to the EMM model proposed in the At-Large Review I sent this in December last year to the LACRALO members of the At-Large Review Party. It outlines an alternative to the proposed EMM model in the At-Large Review. Dev Anand ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com<mailto:devtee@gmail.com>> Date: Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 5:19 PM Subject: Response to the draft At-Large Review document - please consider and forward to the ITEMS or discuss in the At-Large review call To: Fatima Cambronero <fatimacambronero@gmail.com<mailto:fatimacambronero@gmail.com>>, Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org<mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org>>, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com<mailto:aidanoblia@gmail.com>>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>>, Vanda UOL <vanda@uol.com.br<mailto:vanda@uol.com.br>>, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>> Dear All, Since time is short, I want to focus on the proposed EMM in the draft 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
Hello all, My initial thoughts on this alternative model: If we are speaking of fundamentals as the starting point for a discussion, I do not agree that the notion of an ALS as currently applied - is *fundamental* to the work of At-Large. In the broader scheme of things, the only fundamental, in my humble opinion, is the representation of the end-users interests. (This is not a hard and fast view and I would welcome contrary views to expand my thinking on it) With that as a starting point, I dont find much fault with the idea of creating a single focal point in each jurisdiction from which the views of end-users can be gauged (for policy inputs etc) and outreach can be done. That said, I suspect that the finer details will need some more fine-tuning. For e.g.: * If the current proposal is to dispense with formalities like by-laws does this also, implicitly mean that each Virtual ALS (VALS) would have no formal local leadership? * How would the implementation of the VALS impact ones ability to run for a position within At-Large would the status quo remain or would that person have to be nominated by the VALS within the country of origin? * How, if at all, would the VALS concept impact on the current process of individuals joining At-Large/ICANN working groups? -- Regards, Bartlett D. Morgan From: lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 11:35 AM To: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com>; LACRALO discussion list <lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] An Alternative to the EMM model proposed in the At-Large Review Dev, the proposed model of "ICANN At-Large Chapters" in each country is a step towards a membership-based ICANN, which is a no-go. It is a top-down model that creates new organizations instead of bringing together existing organizations. This is troublesome in itself and also negates the "Web of Trust" model which lies at the foundation of At-Large representation. I consider that this model is still important and that the "At-Large Chapters" model is not an improvement. I understand from your note that each country would have a single Chapter. Is that correct? Again that is not what the Rotary or ISOC do. While ISOC prefers a single chapter per country, large, diverse countries like India or Canada have more than one. And certainly Rotary have numerous clubs, sometimes even more than one in a single city. Yours, 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: lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> [lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Dev Anand Teelucksingh [devtee@gmail.com] Enviado el: lunes, 06 de febrero de 2017 06:26 Hasta: LACRALO discussion list Asunto: [lac-discuss-en] An Alternative to the EMM model proposed in the At-Large Review I sent this in December last year to the LACRALO members of the At-Large Review Party. It outlines an alternative to the proposed EMM model in the At-Large Review. Dev Anand ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com <mailto:devtee@gmail.com> > Date: Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 5:19 PM Subject: Response to the draft At-Large Review document - please consider and forward to the ITEMS or discuss in the At-Large review call To: Fatima Cambronero <fatimacambronero@gmail.com <mailto:fatimacambronero@gmail.com> >, Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org <mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org> >, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com <mailto:aidanoblia@gmail.com> >, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> >, Vanda UOL <vanda@uol.com.br <mailto:vanda@uol.com.br> >, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net> > Dear All, Since time is short, I want to focus on the proposed EMM in the draft 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
Thanks Bartlett. To respond to your questions, as I see it : - a virtual ALS / At-Large Chapter would have to select/elect representatives within the Virtual ALS to represent the At-Large Chapter in the RALO affairs. I was suggesting that given that the online aspects of the virtual ALS/At-Large chapter could 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 virtual ALS wouldn't have rules. - 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. - Individuals wanting to join At-Large Working Groups would be encouraged to join the At-Large Chapter in their country if they want to be considered to be selected to represent the RALO and to better collaborate with other like minded persons in their country involved in At-Large. Given the ease of joining, there would be less reason for an individual not to join an At-Large Chapter Dev Anand On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Bartlett Morgan <me@bartlettmorgan.com> wrote:
Hello all,
My initial thoughts on this alternative model:
If we are speaking of fundamentals as the starting point for a discussion, I do not agree that the notion of an ALS – as currently applied - is *fundamental* to the work of At-Large. In the broader scheme of things, the only fundamental, in my humble opinion, is the representation of the end-user’s interests. (This is not a hard and fast view and I would welcome contrary views to expand my thinking on it)
With that as a starting point, I don’t find much fault with the idea of creating a single focal point in each jurisdiction from which the views of end-users can be gauged (for policy inputs etc) and outreach can be done.
That said, I suspect that the finer details will need some more fine-tuning. For e.g.:
· If the current proposal is to dispense with formalities like by-laws does this also, implicitly mean that each Virtual ALS (VALS) would have no formal local leadership?
· How would the implementation of the VALS impact one’s ability to run for a position within At-Large – would the status quo remain or would that person have to be nominated by the VALS within the country of origin?
· How, if at all, would the VALS concept impact on the current process of individuals joining At-Large/ICANN working groups?
--
Regards,
Bartlett D. Morgan
*From:* lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch *Sent:* Monday, February 06, 2017 11:35 AM *To:* Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com>; LACRALO discussion list < lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [lac-discuss-en] An Alternative to the EMM model proposed in the At-Large Review
Dev,
the proposed model of "ICANN At-Large Chapters" in each country is a step towards a membership-based ICANN, which is a no-go.
It is a top-down model that creates new organizations instead of bringing together existing organizations. This is troublesome in itself and also negates the "Web of Trust" model which lies at the foundation of At-Large representation. I consider that this model is still important and that the "At-Large Chapters" model is not an improvement.
I understand from your note that each country would have a single Chapter. Is that correct?
Again that is not what the Rotary or ISOC do. While ISOC prefers a single chapter per country, large, diverse countries like India or Canada have more than one. And certainly Rotary have numerous clubs, sometimes even more than one in a single city.
Yours,
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:* lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [ lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Dev Anand Teelucksingh [devtee@gmail.com] *Enviado el:* lunes, 06 de febrero de 2017 06:26 *Hasta:* LACRALO discussion list *Asunto:* [lac-discuss-en] An Alternative to the EMM model proposed in the At-Large Review
I sent this in December last year to the LACRALO members of the At-Large Review Party. It outlines an alternative to the proposed EMM model in the At-Large Review.
Dev Anand
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Dev Anand Teelucksingh* <devtee@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 5:19 PM Subject: Response to the draft At-Large Review document - please consider and forward to the ITEMS or discuss in the At-Large review call To: Fatima Cambronero <fatimacambronero@gmail.com>, Alberto Soto < asoto@ibero-americano.org>, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, Vanda UOL <vanda@uol.com.br>, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>
Dear All,
Since time is short, I want to focus on the proposed EMM in the draft 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
Thanks Alejandro for the feedback. The At-Large community is already a form of membership model. In the ICANN bylaws at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en , the heading under Section 12.2 (d) (ix) is "Membership in the At-Large Community" An At-Large chapter will simply bring persons from organizations in a country together to serve a unified purpose - just like how a Multistakeholder Stakeholder Group (MAG) comes together to organise a National IGF. It isn't about creating new organisations for the sake of creating organisations. Regarding ISOC having multiple chapters in a country, if there is a large enough number of persons signed up and participating in At-Large on behalf of the interests of Internet end users within a country, then perhaps multiple At-Large chapters in a country could be considered. I suspect potential ISOC chapters in a country had to prove they had sufficient numbers to warrant creating another ISOC chapter when there was already a chapter in the country. Dev Anand On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan@unam.mx> wrote:
Dev,
the proposed model of "ICANN At-Large Chapters" in each country is a step towards a membership-based ICANN, which is a no-go.
It is a top-down model that creates new organizations instead of bringing together existing organizations. This is troublesome in itself and also negates the "Web of Trust" model which lies at the foundation of At-Large representation. I consider that this model is still important and that the "At-Large Chapters" model is not an improvement.
I understand from your note that each country would have a single Chapter. Is that correct?
Again that is not what the Rotary or ISOC do. While ISOC prefers a single chapter per country, large, diverse countries like India or Canada have more than one. And certainly Rotary have numerous clubs, sometimes even more than one in a single city.
Yours,
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:* lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [ lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Dev Anand Teelucksingh [devtee@gmail.com] *Enviado el:* lunes, 06 de febrero de 2017 06:26 *Hasta:* LACRALO discussion list *Asunto:* [lac-discuss-en] An Alternative to the EMM model proposed in the At-Large Review
I sent this in December last year to the LACRALO members of the At-Large Review Party. It outlines an alternative to the proposed EMM model in the At-Large Review.
Dev Anand
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 5:19 PM Subject: Response to the draft At-Large Review document - please consider and forward to the ITEMS or discuss in the At-Large review call To: Fatima Cambronero <fatimacambronero@gmail.com>, Alberto Soto < asoto@ibero-americano.org>, Aida Noblia <aidanoblia@gmail.com>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, Vanda UOL <vanda@uol.com.br>, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net>
Dear All,
Since time is short, I want to focus on the proposed EMM in the draft 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
participants (4)
-
Bartlett Morgan -
Dev Anand Teelucksingh -
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch -
Humberto Carrasco