[ALAC] Review of ROP fo ALSes

[Alan Greenberg]

Daniel, this is the core component of addressing Issue #2 of the At-Large Review and you will see a proposal on how we proceed with this very shortly.

And yes, there will be an opportunity for you to contribute to this.

As a specific point, the case if Connecting.NYC is a good example, as is the phrase in your message "Connecting.nyc Inc. (NARALO ALS) ceased to exist after the death of its member". An ALS which has just one member or just one person interested in ICANN is problematic. The Review proposals made it clear that a prime benefit of an ALS is its members.

Alan

At 10/09/2019 08:11 AM, DANIEL NANGHAKA wrote:
Dear All,

Following one of the calls, one of the key issues that came up was to review the ALSes structure.
With reference to an update from NARALO (In this case - NARALO leadership best understands the situation) which I believe many of At-Large Structures may fall fate.
Connecting.nyc Inc. (NARALO ALS) ceased to exist after the death of its member.

Quoting the link "Recently we lost of our  NARALO ALS  which is  Connection.NYC  was Tom Lowenhaupt. Tom passed away and the organization ceases to exist and verified by Joly MacFie."

I see this as an urgent call to action, where there is a need for a periodic review of ALSes to confirm their representatives after a given period of time. The lose or death of a member should not hinder or affect the representation of a community or group.

Furthermore, Some of the ALSes that have passed due diligence - there works or activities may not be related to the mandate of ICANN. So this calls for a review of the ALSes in there respective participation and engagement in the respective processes.

Is there a way to measure metrics of engagement and participation of ALS on whether they reflect the objectives and mandate?

Another challenge is currently there are no or limited activities that involve ALSes reporting to there respective communities and vice verse - hence there is a need to rethink how ALSes engage with their respective communities in order to drive participation and effective engagement in ICANN PDPs.

Some of the issues may be strong or a challenge to implement, though, with the growing need and shift in Policy issues that affect the end-users, there is a need to come up with new and innovative approaches to streamline participation and representation of end-users.

Am open to suggestions or ways of how this can be effectively implemented and furthermore, I look forward to contributing to any working group that will be or is tailored towards this.

Daniel K. Nanghaka


ᐧ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20190910/36776404/attachment.html>