[lac-discuss-en] An Alternative to the EMM model proposed in the At-Large Review

Mon Feb 6 16:14:50 UTC 2017

Hello all,

My initial thoughts on this alternative model:

If we are speaking of fundamentals as the starting point for a discussion, I
do not agree that the notion of an ALS – as currently applied - is
*fundamental* to the work of At-Large. In the broader scheme of things, the
only fundamental, in my humble opinion, is the representation of the
end-user’s interests. (This is not a hard and fast view and I would welcome
contrary views to expand my thinking on it)

With that as a starting point, I don’t find much fault with the idea of
creating a single focal point in each jurisdiction from which the views of
end-users can be gauged (for policy inputs etc) and outreach can be done.

That said, I suspect that the finer details will need some more fine-tuning.
For e.g.:

*         If the current proposal is to dispense with formalities like
by-laws does this also, implicitly mean that each Virtual ALS (VALS) would
have no formal local leadership? 

*         How would the implementation of the VALS impact one’s ability to
run for a position within At-Large – would the status quo remain or would
that person have to be nominated by the VALS within the country of origin? 

*         How, if at all, would the VALS concept impact on the current
process of individuals joining At-Large/ICANN working groups? 

--

Regards,

Bartlett D. Morgan

From: lac-discuss-en-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:lac-discuss-en-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dr.
Alejandro Pisanty Baruch
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 11:35 AM
To: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee at gmail.com>; LACRALO discussion list
<lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] An Alternative to the EMM model proposed in
the At-Large Review

Dev, 

the proposed model of "ICANN At-Large Chapters" in each country is a step
towards a membership-based ICANN, which is a no-go.

It is a top-down model that creates new organizations instead of bringing
together existing organizations. This is troublesome in itself and also
negates the "Web of Trust" model which lies at the foundation of At-Large
representation. I consider that this model is still important and that the
"At-Large Chapters" model is not an improvement. 

I understand from your note that each country would have a single Chapter.
Is that correct?

Again that is not what the Rotary or ISOC do. While ISOC prefers a single
chapter per country, large, diverse countries like India or Canada have more
than one. And certainly Rotary have numerous clubs, sometimes even more than
one in a single city. 

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Facultad de Química UNAM 

Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico

+52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD 

+525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 
Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty
Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn,
http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614
Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty
---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 

  _____  

Desde: lac-discuss-en-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
<mailto:lac-discuss-en-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
[lac-discuss-en-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Dev Anand
Teelucksingh [devtee at gmail.com]
Enviado el: lunes, 06 de febrero de 2017 06:26
Hasta: LACRALO discussion list
Asunto: [lac-discuss-en] An Alternative to the EMM model proposed in the
At-Large Review

I sent this in December last year to the LACRALO members of the At-Large
Review Party. It outlines an alternative to the proposed EMM model in the
At-Large Review.

Dev Anand

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee at gmail.com <mailto:devtee at gmail.com> >
Date: Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 5:19 PM
Subject: Response to the draft At-Large Review document - please consider
and forward to the ITEMS or discuss in the At-Large review call
To: Fatima Cambronero <fatimacambronero at gmail.com
<mailto:fatimacambronero at gmail.com> >, Alberto Soto
<asoto at ibero-americano.org <mailto:asoto at ibero-americano.org> >, Aida Noblia
<aidanoblia at gmail.com <mailto:aidanoblia at gmail.com> >, Carlton Samuels
<carlton.samuels at gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels at gmail.com> >, Vanda UOL
<vanda at uol.com.br <mailto:vanda at uol.com.br> >, Holly Raiche
<h.raiche at internode.on.net <mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net> >

Dear All,

Since time is short, I want to focus on the proposed EMM in the draft
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 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/attachments/20170206/0edeb708/attachment-0001.html>