[At-Large] Some thoughts about the draft unaffiliated Individuals Mobilization Working Party Report

Tue Mar 16 08:33:51 UTC 2021

Dev,

The points you make have some merit and deserve a discussion.
However, as Chair of the WP I have to raise an issue of procedure. The WP has been tasked to produce a recommendation for the RALOs and ALAC, and it is up to them to make a decision.

The WP has been constituted with three voting members for each RALO, and also open to non-voting participants. The draft document that you have seen is the result of this WP, agreed by consensus. Right or wrong, this is the outcome of the work by the WP - if we accept the principle that a last minute comment by a person that has not participated to the WP should cause the reopening of the matter for another round, you see how this can easily bring to the situation of having a never ending WP, because after the next round maybe somebody else will raise a new issue.

Further discussion will take place once the Leadership will put their draft decision for public comment by At-Large. The Leadership has a wide range of options: can disregard the WP consensus and accept your comments, can disregard your comments and accept the WP recommendation, can send the matter back to the WP with the request of opening a new round of consultation, or other. But the matter is now in the hands of the RALO and ALAC Leadership.

This is about the process - personally I have some objections to a few things you say, like the “tiered approach”, also in relation to how the discussion has progressed about this in the WP.

Cheers,
Roberto

On 15.03.2021, at 22:46, Dev Anand Teelucksingh via At-Large <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:

I never saw an interim report nor was part of the WG.

One example of tiered membership : The current thinking in LACRALO is that individuals will only be allowed to work in RALO WGs, not necessarily Atlarge ones and cannot vote in LACRALO and cannot be selected/ elected in LACRALO and At-Large.

I’m tempted to describe this using more provocative terms ; “tiered” membership is probably the kindest.

You say "RALOs have a lot of say about their members and how they organise them within their individual RALOs because they can".

However, a key difference is that RALOs do not accredit its members.
An organisation does not join a RALO.
An organisation joins At-Large. RALOs are made up of organisations accredited by ALAC within an ICANN region.

If we in At-Large want to embrace individuals, we should be striving to replicate how organisations join At-Large with respect to individuals, not 5 separate and different processes to "join the RALO", with individuals having different rights and responsibilities solely on the individual's origin.

Kind Regards,

Dev Anand

On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 at 8:47 PM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Dev

You have commented on a lot of issues which would have been helpful to raise in the many meetings that were held to discuss this issue but I just wanted to respond to your comment about RALO Individual members.

Its in the bylaws, but RALOs have a lot of say about their members and how they organise them within their individual RALOs because they can. Even now not every RALO member in At-Large has the same rights as some in other RALOS, but that is what it is, within their RALOs. Every RALO can set its own rules within the boundaries of its own RALO - although in an ideal world we would like every RALO member to have the same rights and opportunities. But that isnt for any other RALO to say.

However, just as this happens already, every person in At-Large from any RALO is treated equitably, and positions that are in the domain of the ALAC for example are open to all RALO members whether they are ALS or RALO individuals  e.g.for membership of working groups inside or outside of At-Large.. For these positions, it is to do with their ability and knowledge to participate in a particular activity on behalf of At-Large, so the appointment choices are generally made by a RALO-constituted subcommittee or voted on by the ALAC themselves.

I am not sure what you mean by a tiered membership. I would be most unhappy if there was any distinction between individual members, be they ALS or RALO, outside of their RALOs..

Maureen

On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 1:42 PM Dev Anand Teelucksingh via At-Large <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>> wrote:
I must express some concerns regarding the approaches made in the draft Unaffiliated Individuals Mobilization Working Party Report at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uE4ue7roIpYY_OeX_A6-BtrxcKOkq-PcPhXRj8n7YwM/edit

At-Large wants to recruit individuals to the At-Large constituency who are not affiliated to At-Large Structures but care about the issues pertaining to ICANN's remit as they impact individual Internet users and to volunteer to participate in policy determinations.

However, the proposed report makes for potential individuals to be treated outside of the At-Large Community, as if they aren't "real" members but “lower tier” members of a RALO. Also, based on a person's origin, individuals are given different rights to participate and to be considered for positions in At-Large.

The proposals in the draft final report would

  *
Add complexity to At-Large processes for individuals to join At-Large making At-Large even more confusing to outsiders (and even ICANN “insiders” in other AC/SOs).
  *
Doesn’t provide incentives for individuals to join At-Large since they are given wording that At-Large representatives can do certain things and be recognized, but as individuals, you do not have those rights and responsibilities of At-Large representatives.
  *
Makes other AC/SOs more attractive since it's easier to understand and easier to join.
  *
Removes check and balances in how individuals in At-Large are even recognized to participate compared to how At-Large Structures are accredited.

Consider the term “RALO individual members”.
It serves to send the message that the “RALO member” can only be involved in RALO activities and not At-Large activities and not part of the global At-Large Community.

A better term would be something like “At-Large Individual” which would show that an individual is part of the At-Large Community.

Consider the process by which “RALO individual members” join :

  *
individual fills out a form designed by the RALO (not a common At-Large one) so there’s 5 forms with different wording and requirements (not counting translations)
  *
RALO will apply its own procedures for accepting or rejecting application
  *
RALO Leadership (RALO Chair, Vice-Chairs (if any), and Secretariat) informs Staff whether the RALO accepts or rejects the application.
  *
Staff informs applicant.

The lack of transparency contrasts with how At-Large applications by organisations are handled. The check and balances by having the ALAC made aware of the RALO advice towards At-Large applications is removed.

RALO leadership can make a decision on an individual without even the RALO members themselves not being aware of an individual’s application depending on the RALO procedures. RALO leadership could even discriminate against individuals they perceive as threats to their leadership.

There should be a standard process by which individuals anywhere in the world apply as At-Large individuals, similar to how organisations apply to At-Large.

Kind Regards,

Dev Anand

_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org<http://atlarge.icann.org/>
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20210316/489d1744/attachment-0001.html>