[At-Large] [ALAC] Idea for an alternative to the EMM proposed in the At-Large Review

Wed Feb 15 08:11:16 UTC 2017

Hi everyone

I think the country chapter has merit. And for this I use the example of
the APRALO ALS, the Internet Society of China. Although their model is
based on a political expectation of coordinating all the internet users of
the country within one system, there is a separate leadership which
coordinates and manages the whole organisation, and that leadership
represents China's internet users and are the primary contacts with
At-Large and ICANN. China's size requires a system which is run like a
major corporation. However, despite the difference in size of its internet
user population in comparison with other countries, my own as an example, I
believe that there are some features of the internal coordination of ISC
that could be replicated elsewhere. It is a well-oiled machine.

Using a similar model within a democratic context, organisational members
(like our current ALSes, and other internet-related organisations) as well
as individuals, could belong to the country chapter and could also
choose/elect their country leaders as their representatives in their RALO
of ICANN.

Having the organisational aspects coordinated in-country would take the
administrative onus off the ICANN/ALAC system (and staff) so that they
would be dealing with the leaders of end-users of each country as an
advisory source on end-user issues for the ALAC, just as Internet Leaders
of country Governments do within the GAC. Both systems are still only
advisory sources. They don't actually write policy, only contribute to it.

But in order for the country model to be acceptable and effective, ICANN
would have to put by-laws and other expectations of country membership in
place to ensure that country chapters, if we were to have such a system,
would operate with the same rights and freedoms that we are attempting to
ensure at a country level for the Internet. So that participation in the
systems at country level must also be open and transparent and all its
members (individual or organisational) will be able to contribute in some
meaningful way with each other and to provide feedback towards At-Large's
contribution to ICANN policy via the ALAC. But the organisation of this
would be internal. I think it would be too unwieldy for ALAC or ICANN to
take on the coordination of individual members open slather.

YET... despite the argument I provide above, my personal preference is
still the current ALS system but working more towards encouraging more
individual members to become more active within their ALS at a local level,
and providing evidence of their contribution towards end-user participation
into At-Large policy discussions.  I think that ALSes could take more
responsibility for the recruitment and coordination of individual members
at a local level - outreach would be more effective locally and at regional
level.  But the value of ALSes for me, is that mulitple ALSes from one
country would allow for diversity of different interest groups bringing
their collective views to regional level and then to the  ALAC as opposed
to the one-size-fits-all country model of contribution to policy
discussions.

Maureen

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 7:53 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Dev, based on your response, I then like to focus on item 1; the
> problem statement. Kindly find comments inline:
>
> Sent from my LG G4
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>
> On Feb 15, 2017 2:53 AM, "Dev Anand Teelucksingh" <devtee at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Seun, to respond to your questions/comments:
>
>
> 1. What is wrong with the current ALS structure that the "ISOC chapter
> like" setup as a replacement would address? If this is with regards to
> individual membership, isn't some RALOs already doing that? What can we
> learn from their experience and how can we improve on it sounds like a way
> forward to me.
>
> - A lot of time and energy is used in At-Large to "certifying"
> organisations as At-large Structures, whether organisations are end user
> focused, are organisations legitimate, how much members it has, what are
> the bylaws of the organisation - it takes months, sometimes years for an
> organisation to become accredited as an At-Large Structure with the
> ultimate end result being one or two persons in an organisation having the
> volunteer time, energy, passion to be involved in At-Large whilst serving
> their organisation. That's because many organisations' (including ISOC
> chapters) reason for being is not singularly focused on the narrow remit of
> ICANN issues.
>
>
> SO: Based on what is stated above, will reviewing the certification
> requirement address the problem?
>
>
> Many organisations are also facing the challenges of the Internet and
> Social Media, persons able to find technical knowledge online and network
> directly with like minded individuals without joining "formal"
> organisations.
>
>
> SO: Okay this seem to refer to individual membership which as you know is
> being attended to by some RALOs already (but ofcourse can be improved). On
> the other hand there are also people on AtLarge who are not even Members of
> any ALS at the moment so do you not think the current structure already
> provide accommodation for such individual who doesn't want a formal
> involvement?
>
> - The marketing of ICANN At-Large as a result is also confusing as it
> foremost focuses on organisations joining rather than individuals, the
> latter often joining in an ad-hoc manner.
>
>
> SO: I totally agree with this point, and this will then call for reviewing
> our outreach strategy. It makes absolute sense to reachout to individuals
> instead, get them to join as individuals, when they are in, they themselves
> can decide to take it a step further by inviting their organisation and
> having them join.
>
> - The motivation for ALSes to market to individuals in their country to
> join At-Large is not there as organisations would seek to have persons join
> and assist their organisation first than be involved ICANN At-Large.
>
>
> SO: Hmm...While I see your point, I think the other point is that current
> structure in some RALOs doesn't have option for individual hence an
> existing ALS is only motivated to encourage other organisations to join as
> an ALS which indeed can take time and make it discouraging. Still goes back
> to comment made above about making provisions for individual membership.
>
> - For countries with zero At-Large presence, individuals that may have an
> interest in Internet end user issues have an obstacle of forming a group
> first to then participate in At-Large.
>
>
> SO: Indeed, same Comment as above.
>
> - This is cumbersome and confusing with no obvious benefit. Its why groups
> in ICANN like NCUC which are easier to join (and market) appear to be more
> successful.
>
> - The replacement idea of online At-Large Chapters would unite users,
> individuals, organisation members as a Special Interest Group, the Interest
> being to focus on ICANN activites as it relates to the interests of
> Internet end users.
>
>
> SO: If the AtLarge chapters is just the title we want to use to
> accommodate individual membership, so instead of having just one ALS like
> organisation that serves as umbrella for all individuals interested to join
> (as some RALOs have done) we setup country chapters and have individuals
> join through that while the ALS continues. The other option for a start
> could be to have a chapter per RALO and then have country chapters formed
> once the membership in the RALO chapter from a particular country reach
> certain number. Overall I personally feel going this route will bring
> about more "online" administrative work but I will be fine if we are in for
> that.
>
> - The marketing becomes much simpler - have an interest, join the online
> At-Large Chapter in your country. Building relationships with other
> stakeholders (eg ccNSO) in country would also become easier.
>
>
> SO: Dev I am sure you know that current ALS/RALO is actually online (once
> the accreditation hurdle is passed), so I think onus of the whole issue is
> more about providing a means for individual membership to join formerly.
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> 2. I don't know about many ISOC chapters but based on the few I am
> familiar with, I doubt ISOC chapter is as successful as such, especially in
> the area of sourcing diverse input into a global process. Don't get me
> wrong, I am an ISOC member and this is not to play down on the ORG but to
> recognise that even as they strive to improve there will always be
> participation challenge which isn't anyone's fault (when it gets to certain
> level)
>
> - Indeed, the challenges of managing the bureaucracy of a organisation can
> drain the few volunteers in organisation that strive to fulfill the work of
> the organisation. Often those passionate few persons working in the
> organisation are the ones called on to get involved in At-Large.
>
>
> 3. I can assure you that the level of success that ISOC chapters may have
> achieved is among many things also because of the support/resources/funding
> that ISOC global provided to her chapters. Is ICANN ORG and community
> willing and ready for such commitment. Should we go into this and get
> blamed later?
>
> - We are getting blamed yesterday and today. :-)
> - The resources are primarily online ones - eg mailing list, online
> conference room, wiki accounts, online voting, essentially the online
> support offered to RALOs today. It is NOT about registering an organisation
> in country, paying rent fees, paying taxes as ISOC requires. The only
> significant dollar amount that could be needed would be for public outreach
> activites of the At-Large Chapter and that could be covered by the type of
> funding of local outreach activites  project implemented for FY17.
>
>
> 4. Currently the only significant things we do for ALSes is an opportunity
> to have one global meeting at every ATLAS event and in if some RALOs are
> lucky they get to bring their ALS reps to one ICANN event in their region.
> Based on this, we already have significant noise that ICANN already spend
> too much on AtLarge, you can't imagine what we will get if it were chapters
> because maintaining a chapter isn't cheap (especially if it's to effective)
>
> - Again, its not as expensive. Its the same support offered to RALOs, but
> done at the country/territory level.
>
> 5. It's easier to sell ISOC chapter to a country/Netizen than to sell an
> AtLarge chapter, so I see a significant marketing challenge there.
>
> - Indeed, ISOC chapters compete with local organisations for mindshare.
> And persons in an At-Large chapter can be involved in whatever
> organisations they want to be in, be it ISOC or otherwise.
> - Think of the At-Large Chapter as a online Special Interest Group per
> country.
>
>
>
> 6. ISOC chapters isn't just a virtual setup and getting an ISOC chapter up
> and running indeed requires legal documentation locally. If we think it
> will be easy to get someone interested in not just leading a team but going
> through that process then we should go interview some countries/localities
> who are still trying to get their ISOC chapter up and running (bear in mind
> that ISOC is more marketable).
>
> - Again, its not about registering companies in countries, the At-Large
> chapters are virtual, just like RALOs are today.
>
>
> 7. The current ALS is somewhat based on freewill hence ICANN/AtLarge has
> no serious obligation to ensure the ALS remain alive as the organisation
> runs independently. However once we put AtLarge on that path of chapters,
> we would have signed up for more upbringing responsibilities which would
> result to more administrative responsibilities (was ITEMS mentioning there
> is too much internal processes in current structure, wait for what is to
> come if we go chapter route).
>
> - But the metrics and tracking of involvement of the persons in an
> At-Large Chapter becomes much, much more easier to ICANN to audit. The
> processes and rules for each online At-Large Chapter will be consistent.
> At-Large becomes more accountable and transparent.
>
> Dev Anand
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Dev,
>>
>> As much as I think what you've said is interesting, I doubt it's what
>> AtLarge require as an improvement. A few question/comments comes to mind as
>> I read through your proposal:
>>
>> 1. What is wrong with the current ALS structure that the "ISOC chapter
>> like" setup as a replacement would address? If this is with regards to
>> individual membership, isn't some RALOs already doing that? What can we
>> learn from their experience and how can we improve on it sounds like a way
>> forward to me.
>>
>> 2. I don't know about many ISOC chapters but based on the few I am
>> familiar with, I doubt ISOC chapter is as successful as such, especially in
>> the area of sourcing diverse input into a global process. Don't get me
>> wrong, I am an ISOC member and this is not to play down on the ORG but to
>> recognise that even as they strive to improve there will always be
>> participation challenge which isn't anyone's fault (when it gets to certain
>> level)
>>
>> 3. I can assure you that the level of success that ISOC chapters may have
>> achieved is among many things also because of the support/resources/funding
>> that ISOC global provided to her chapters. Is ICANN ORG and community
>> willing and ready for such commitment. Should we go into this and get
>> blamed later?
>>
>> 4. Currently the only significant things we do for ALSes is an
>> opportunity to have one global meeting at every ATLAS event and in if some
>> RALOs are lucky they get to bring their ALS reps to one ICANN event in
>> their region. Based on this, we already have significant noise that ICANN
>> already spend too much on AtLarge, you can't imagine what we will get if it
>> were chapters because maintaining a chapter isn't cheap (especially if it's
>> to effective)
>>
>> 5. It's easier to sell ISOC chapter to a country/Netizen than to sell an
>> AtLarge chapter, so I see a significant marketing challenge there.
>>
>> 6. ISOC chapters isn't just a virtual setup and getting an ISOC chapter
>> up and running indeed requires legal documentation locally. If we think it
>> will be easy to get someone interested in not just leading a team but going
>> through that process then we should go interview some countries/localities
>> who are still trying to get their ISOC chapter up and running (bear in mind
>> that ISOC is more marketable).
>>
>> 7. The current ALS is somewhat based on freewill hence ICANN/AtLarge has
>> no serious obligation to ensure the ALS remain alive as the organisation
>> runs independently. However once we put AtLarge on that path of chapters,
>> we would have signed up for more upbringing responsibilities which would
>> result to more administrative responsibilities (was ITEMS mentioning there
>> is too much internal processes in current structure, wait for what is to
>> come if we go chapter route).
>>
>> Overall maybe it may have been good to have a chapter like AtLarge in the
>> early 2000 before the community reduced AtLarge to a single Board Member
>> organisation and with advisory capacity, I doubt such is realistic in the
>> present ICANN not because it will not receive support of the community but
>> because it doesn't sound sustainable!
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sent from my LG G4
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>> On Feb 13, 2017 15:05, "Dev Anand Teelucksingh" <devtee at gmail.com> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/di
>>> splay/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20170214/52a17bf4/attachment-0001.html>