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

Wed Aug 15 15:26:29 UTC 2012

Dear Oksana,

this is a relevant question you raise. There is actually not much consolidated information but many observations on a correlation between personal changes in ALSes or the leadership and the level of participation at EURALO. We guess (but couldn't verify in detail) that those people at KEFKA and the Slovenian Consumer org. who applied for an ALS certification are not in charge any more and their successors don't understand the broader context or simply don't care. And this phenomenon may be true for other cases (like Terre des femmes etc.) as well. As an exception from such a rule we know that the guy at Ynternet.org is still in charge but always delegated the EURALO dossier to (often changing) collaborators who (almost) never followed-up. And he never *responded* to my reminders the last two years.

I don't know whether we can "use national IGFs to update information about ALS leadership"? Informally yes, in some cases this may work. But using our splendid networks may be more useful: Rudi offered to check with the ISOC chapters (which are not in question at the moment), I can verify with our German and Swiss members, you could do in Eastern Europe (where we do not have problem cases for the moment).

At EuroDIG we are in contact with many national IGFs already, This offers opportunities for some EURALO outreach as well but does not necessarily mean that they are interested in the ALAC mission.

Kind regards,
Wolf

 Oksana Prykhodko wrote Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:49
>Dear all,
>
>Does anybody have information on correlation between changes in ALS
>leadership and its activity in ALAC or RALO?
>
>Can we use national IGFs to update information about ALS leadership
>and to share concerns about unperformed role of inactive ALSes?
>
>Actually, in post-Soviet space we need more success stories of active
>ALSes, but, in any case, national IGFs are extremely good platform to
>share ALAC mission.
>
>Best regards,
>Oksana
>
>2012/8/10 Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com>:
>> +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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>

EuroDIG Secretariat
http://www.eurodig.org/
mobile +41 79 204 83 87
Skype: Wolf-Ludwig

EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
http://euralo.org

Profile on LinkedIn
http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig