[ALAC] ALS decertification

[Alan Greenberg]

Sala,

I do not belive that Global Stakeholder Engagement (as Global 
Partnerships is now called) places a roll in this. All of the Due 
Diligence forms I have see recently have been done by ICANN Policy 
staff assigned to At-Large.

These same folks are involved in all of these discussions and if they 
see something that does not fit together, they will surely speak up.

Regarding issues between ISOC and a Chapter, as may see from other 
messages today, that is NOT the issue, but rather using ISOC as an 
information source about the existance of the chapter.

Alan

At 28/05/2013 07:31 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>On the issue of decertification, I find it problematic that whilst 
>ICANN staff through global partnerships does the due diligence for 
>accreditation purposes, there is no similar or equal process done by them.
>
>I note that ISOC has a problem with ISOC Pakistan and my view is 
>that this is a political impasse between ISOC and ISOC Pakistan, 
>that they should resolve between themselves. By extension, this also 
>means that the use of the ISOC logo and related memorabilia etc. 
>When ISOC Pakistan was accredited in the first instance, it was 
>accepted as an ALS within Pakistan and At Large. It follows that the 
>agreement or relationship is not with ISOC but with the ALS on the ground.
>
>Whilst there seems to be some strained relations between ISOC 
>Pakistan and ISOC, I have also noted that discussions have all been 
>with ISOC officers and those with affiliations to ISOC. A principle 
>of fairness and equity would demand that a due diligence 
>investigation should be carried out by an independent officer 
>without any ISOC leanings to collect information on the ground about 
>the justified delisting of an entity. I have held prior roles in 
>regulating the capital or securities markets and know that even with 
>delisting entities from the stock exchange etc, there are stringent 
>tests. (not saying that the tests should be the same but that we can 
>look at principles of what's fair etc).
>
>If the ALAC deems that the ALS does not have a website me or that it 
>has not been responding to mails. From current efforts within the 
>Capacity Building Working Group, I can tell you that not all ALSes 
>have websites and neither do all the contacts given to ICANN during 
>the Accreditation process. Therein lies the danger of 
>decertification because just because the original address given to 
>At Large does not work. (There could be many explanations)
>
>On another note, there is a very real danger in delisting upon the 
>advice of ISOC on one of their chapters because they do not conform 
>to the ISOC mission. Whilst ISOC does have the right to delist from 
>their roll, I am very uncomfortable with them interfering with an 
>ALS on the ground.
>
>On the issue of the use of the name ISOC Pakistan, I do not think 
>that it is a matter that should concern us as the ALAC as this is a 
>private impasse between ISOC and ISOC Pakistan. On a similar note, 
>recently when cleaning up our spreadsheet of ALSes, we were informed 
>when we checked with some of our members of the change of names of 
>some of the ALSes as this is a possibility and likelihood as far as 
>evolution of Organisations go. People change and names change, sometimes.
>
>In this instance, in the event, I am mindful that there are always 
>two sides to every story and it is always wise to have all the facts 
>before making a decision.
>
>Thoughts from the far seas.
>
>Sala
>
>Sent from my iPad
>
>On May 29, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
>
> > On 28 May 2013 15:10, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Yaovi. I agree that adding the line about
> >> ISOC makes the disappearance clearer, but I think
> >> it also adds something that could get us into trouble.
> >>
> >
> > I disagree, and support Yaovi's amendment.
> >
> > Indicating that we have checked with "the" Internet Society and they have
> > indicated that the Pakistan Chapter no longer exists, simply indicates an
> > extra level of due diligence was undertaken to ensure that all reasonable
> > steps have been made to establish viability and/or contact.
> >
> > I would also note that the use of the term "Pakistan _*Chapter*_" strongly
> > indicates that this was a subordinate body of a larger one (not the case in
> > China) and that we have made a good-faith attempt to verify our information
> > with the only body known by the name "internet society" to have multiple
> > international chapters.
> >
> > The motions simply detail our good-faith attempt to make all reasonable
> > efforts to establish contact before taking this extreme measure. These
> > details do not obligate us to take the same exact measures for any future
> > circumstance of this nature; the "without prejudice" sentence in both
> > motions makes that intent quite explicit IMO.
> >
> > - Evan
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at 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)