<div dir="ltr"><div>According to Maureen and Winthrop in preference over the current ALS model over the ISOC model. The ISOC-style country unification model could be allowed to unify all individual Internet users who did not participate in an ALs. There, the two systems would coexist: on the one hand all the ALs of a country and on the other side ISOC, as a separate organization, representing the individual voices of the individual users of that country that do not integrate any ALs.</div><div><br></div><div> But the direct voice of the ALS in ICANN seems to me preferable and more transparent because it is the expression of different internal groups within the same country, which are sometimes quite different or have different interests. If these voices have to be agreed upon in a single voice, the expression of their interests is nullified, because they have to be agreed upon in a single voice and therefore would not be reflecting exactly the position of the different parties that comprise it, different parts of the community of Internet.</div><div><br></div><div>Aída Noblia</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2017-02-15 7:49 GMT-03:00 Winthrop Yu <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:w.yu@gmx.net" target="_blank">w.yu@gmx.net</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Just some thoughts ...<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Dev:<span class=""><br>
- The motivation for ALSes to market to individuals in their country to<br>
join At-Large is not there as organisations would seek to have persons<br>
join and assist their organisation first than be involved ICANN At-Large.<br>
<br>
</span></blockquote>
Not necessarily. Instead at ISOC-PH it's the willing and able *individuals* who decide which issues to focus on, gather like-minded members and get help from the chapter/ALS' other members who may not wish to be as deeply or continuously engaged on a particular issue.<br>
<br>
I expect that for each ALS there are Internet issues that are top-of-mind in-country, for example - i.a. online freedom and net neutrality. Clearly one problem would be how to raise awareness about ICANN such that ICANN's issues rise on those local top-of-mind rankings. The challenge here is that ICANN issues are (understandably) ICANN-centric and often seem far-removed from the more urgent issues that concern local Netizens. Thus, as we as a chapter/ALS cannot dictate which issues to focus on, then active individuals will naturally gravitate towards and engage in those specific issues which seem most important to them and where they feel they can best contribute.<br>
<br>
That being said, it does help when an ICANN rep (like the one who flew in last year 2016) has a chance to sit down, chat and get to know at least the chapter/ALS officers. This is certainly appreciated and we hope to see her again this year. It is hardly helpful if an ICANN rep (like the one who flew-in in 2015 and 2014) immediately flys-out again after delivering his presentation, or (as in early 2014) when senior ICANN officers fly-in at the behest of in-country VIPs but without any contact or engagement with the local ALS. This simply exacerbates the impression that ICANN's concerns are far removed from those of the ALS and local Netizens.<br>
<br>
Thus i would tend to agree with Maureen ...<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Maureen:<span class=""><br>
YET... despite the argument I provide above, my personal preference is still<br>
the current ALS system but working more towards encouraging more individual<br>
members to become more active within their ALS at a local level, and<br>
providing evidence of their contribution towards end-user participation into<br>
At-Large policy discussions.<br>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
With the additional proviso that it's not just about getting more members to become active, but also that ICANN / At-Large issues should be more relevant to the local context, so that members who are inclined to be active will be encouraged to engage on those (ICANN) issues.<br>
<br>
WYn<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
At-Large mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.o<wbr>rg</a><br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.or<wbr>g/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a><br>
<br>
At-Large Official Site: <a href="http://atlarge.icann.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://atlarge.icann.org</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Aida Noblia</div>
</div>