[APAC-Discuss] Individual Member Discussion

[Amal Ramzi]

Dear Maureen,
I thought we can comment on the workspace. Anyway, I'll state my comment by replying to your email.
- I think individual membership should be accepted only if there is no ALS in the country of the individual who may be the founder of his/her country's ALS . Otherwise S/he is asked to join an  ALS in his country . 
- As for the criteria of accepting the individual membership according to their related affiliations or ICANN awareness, I think there should be an application for for individuals that includes some questions measuring the level and the type of the individual's involvement and background about ICANN or internet issues as the ALAC will decide .
-  Yes, I support imposing a timeframed membership for both ALSes & individuals to activate the members roles within APRALO.
- I think the individual membership should be encouraged as well as ALSes, 'cause it leads to encourage more ALSes that might be come out by those individuals. So, individual membership shouldn't be that hard and nor that easy. Individuals affiliate to some organizations or associations may be accepted at first as individuals in order to be familiar with APRALO and be able to apply on behalf of their affiliations to represent an ALS. And the timeframed membership will make it easy to filter the individual & ALSes members regularly.
That was my opinion limited to my knowledge.
Thank you .
Best Regards,     Amal Al-saqqaf
ISOC-YemenSana'a - YEMENMobile: +967 733952811Email:    amalramzi88 at yahoo.com             contact at isoc.yeWebsite:   http://www.isoc.ye/
LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/amalalsaqqaf

 


     On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 8:54 PM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> wrote:
   

 Dear APRALO members
https://community.icann.org/display/APRALO/APRALO+Rules+of+Procedures+Review+2015-+Individual+membership 

On the workspace whose link is above, I have summarised some of the face-to-face discussion we had today at our monthly meeting, plus some comments that were already on the workspace about INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP.
Before we move on to a formal set of criteria if would be good to get a sense of others' views on the following points:   
   - should we expect individuals to prove that they are not affiliated with any ICANN or ALS related organisations - if so how would they do this?
   - what evidence should the provide to show that they are actually working on end-user activities and are aware of what ICANN is and does
   - should we impose timeframed membership for all ALSes as well as individual members - it would make it easier to get rid of the deadwood as Satish suggests?
   - should we impose a similar set of metrics for individual members as we do for ALSes?
   - What is an optimum sized package for an individual members ALS?
   - what process should we expect for them to vote for their representative of their ALS-type organisation?
   - should we be encouraging individual membership or encouraging ALSes?
   - Should we make it harder to be an individual member so that we can encourage more ALSes (to enable outreach from a common governance or technical starting point?)
 I would really appreciate your commentsMaureen
_______________________________________________
APAC-Discuss mailing list
APAC-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss

Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org

  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/apac-discuss/attachments/20151022/9cad65f0/attachment-0001.html>