[EURO-Discuss] R: Proposal procedure active- non-active ALSes

Fri Aug 10 01:14:16 UTC 2012

+1, but with a further comment.
Since the beginning of ALAC, and even before, the issue has been how to
foster contribution to the policy-making process.
The ALSes have been seen as a way to have discussions on the local level,
and bring the issues to a regional level.
My personal opinion is that it is extremely likely that, if ALSes are not
engaged in the regional policy development process, most probably they are
not even discussing the issues locally. If this is the case, they are
completely useless for the ICANN policy development process, so there will
be no harm in cutting the dead branches.
On the other hand, there has been an extremely lively discussion, many years
ago, about individual contributions to policy development. My recollection
is that EURALO was going to open a process to allow individual membership,
in a form to be discussed. Where are we with this process? My worry is that,
while we give a formal status to possibly inactive structures, we put
psychological barreers to participation from individuals who could
potentially contribute.
Yes, I understand that I do have a potential conflict of interest, being an
individual not belonging to any ALS raising this point, but look at it from
a different point of view: I am a fan of *the power of contribution* rather
than *the power of voting* (some might remember my approach to the GNSO
review). And, ALS or not ALS, you can't stop me from expressing my opinion
anyway... ;>)
R.


-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Avri
Doria
Inviato: giovedì 9 agosto 2012 11:42
A: Discussion for At-Large Europe
Cc: Staff At Large
Oggetto: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Proposal procedure active- non-active ALSes

+1

On 9 Aug 2012, at 09:10, William Drake wrote:

> Hi
> 
> As a Euralo board member and NCUC/SG rep on the GNSO maybe I can amplify.
We do a "check in" procedure annually in the first place because we have a
fairly large membership of over 200 organizational and individual members
and have competitive elections to positions, e.g. Council seats, NCSG and
NCUC chairs, excom.  So it seems reasonable that the voting polity in a
contested election should comprise only those able to must the energy to
reply to an email and say yes I am still here and interested in
participating.  I suppose secondarily it could be of some use when we're
trying to work out a policy position, i.e. if someone weighs in on a list
discussion with a strong view that affects the ability to get consensus, it
may be worth determining if they're an active member or not.  Conversely,
you don't have to hold up the consensus building process because you've not
yet heard from phantoms.
> 
> We debated what was the appropriate threshold of activity to be classified
as active.  As Mathieu notes, this is complicated as given peoples'
availability and the natural tendency to pick and choose items you're
willing to devote energy to based on interests and bandwidth at a given
time.  So while in principle you could say that someone who has never
participated in online discussions or shown up for a GA in a year should be
deemed inactive, in practice this might be unfair.  
> 
> An annual check in mail prior to an election cycle is a pretty low impact
way of determining at least a baseline level of commitment.  If a member has
really fallen off the map, this is a way to know.  And with number of
members in Euralo, it wouldn't be difficult to execute.  And it could
increase the credibility of claims to represent xyz actors.
> 
> All in all, Rudi's suggestion seems sensible enough to me.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Aug 8, 2012, at 5:21 PM, Mathieu Paapst wrote:
> 
>> Hi Rudi,
>> 
>> I think you cannot assume that everyone participates on everything. 
>> For me it is also not clear how much activity is needed or desired. 
>> Do you want every ALS to participate in the monthly call or do you 
>> just want them to visit the yearly GA?
>> And what will EURALO gain from putting ALSes on such a list other 
>> than making it easier to reach a quorum?
>> 
>> I am not necessarily against this measure, however it does not feel 
>> right if the board is not involved in these kind of decisions.  Is 
>> there anything in our bylaws on this subject?
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Mathieu Paapst
>> ISOC-NL
>> 
>> Rudi Vansnick schreef:
>>> Dear board members,
>>> 
>>> As we see many ALSes in EURALO not being quite active, in a long term
not having responded to emails and other communications, we have to be
honest and show respect for those having been active all along the road and
as such allowing EURALO to still be recognized as part of the ALAC
constituency. However, it is clear the number of ALSes is an important
factor for ALAC to show interest and participation in the concept of the
multi-stakeholder process of ICANN.
>>> 
>>> Therefor I propose we would act as does the NCUC by sending out an email
requesting a response within a certain delay. If no response is received
within the given timeframe, the ALS would be put on an "non-active" list.
This would also allow us to have a correct quorum and election mechanism.
This mechanism is a temporary procedure, not being voted on by the board,
but as other decisions has also been taken without explicit approval of the
board, I assume this one can also go through.
>>> 
>>> I'm willing to work out the process of this proposal with timeframe and
procedural aspects in order to allow "non-active" ALSes getting back into
the active list once they have shown enough interest in the work of EURALO
and ALAC.
>>> 
>>> Just my eurocent idea
>>> 
>>> Rudi Vansnick
>>> EURALO board member
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> EURO-Discuss mailing list
>>> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
>>> 
>>> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
>>> 
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> EURO-Discuss mailing list
>> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
>> 
>> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EURO-Discuss mailing list
> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
> 
> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org


_______________________________________________
EURO-Discuss mailing list
EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss

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