[AFRI-Discuss] Finalizing Individual Membership Recommendation

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Jul 17 16:17:48 UTC 2017

Dear Pastor Peters,

You addressed your questions to Aziz, but a few 
of them really are in my domain and I will attempt to reply.

The message I sent Aziz was a reminder and not 
the result of a recent ALAC action. In 2008/9, we 
had the first Independent Review of At-Large. 
This process was a long and complicated one that 
involved extensive consultation all all levels of 
the community. One of the recommendations was 
that all RALOs investigate how (note "how", not 
"if") to incorporate individual unaffiliated 
members into their organization. That set of 
recommendations was approved by the ICANN Board 
on 26 June 2009 (Resolution 2009-06-26-30).

At that time, NARALO already had individual 
members, but it was the only RALO that did. The 
"Recommendation", once approved by the Board, was 
no longer an option (and notably, no RALO 
objected to it!) EURALO and eventually APRALO 
developed procedures, each in their own way, to 
accommodate users unaffiliated with ALSes. AFRALO 
and LACRALO have not done so to date.

The ongoing review of At-Large has come out with 
an even stronger recommendation that individual 
users are essential, and that it MUST not be 
required that a person interested in joining 
At-Large either form or find an ALS. Although 
At-Large is generally not agreeing with the 
details of this recommendation and particularly 
the implication that ALSes be effectively 
abolished, all of our responses, including those 
of the RALOs which all RALO members had a 
opportunity to contribute to, agreed that we 
would have individual unaffiliated members in all 
regions. This "compromise" has the advantage of 
allowing RALOs to set the specific rules (within 
a reasonable envelope) of such individual membership.

To address your number 2, the ALAC does not have 
direct jurisdiction over RALOs, but RALOS are 
subject to certain rules made by the ALAC (and 
developed with regional input) where the ICANN 
Bylaws and ALAC Rules of Procedure give the ALAC 
such rights. Each RALO selects ALAC Members and 
by doing so, the region gives those 
representatives the right to act on their behalf.

Regarding your question 5 on the benefits of 
individual members, the ICANN Bylaws identifies 
At-Large as the home of all individual Internet 
users. As originally envisioned, there would be 
ALSes which would allow (and I quote the Bylaws) 
"every individual Internet user who is a citizen 
of a country within the RALO's Geographic Region 
to participate in at least one of the RALO's 
At-Large Structures". Clearly this is not the 
case now, and it is unrealistic to believe that 
this is possible. Many ALSes have particular 
orientations or interests (such as yours) and 
cannot be expected to accommodate everyone. And 
two sets of external reviewers have recognized 
that requiring someone to set up a new ALS just 
to be able to participate in a RALO is not reasonable.

At-Large had FAR TOO FEW PEOPLE who are really 
active in the policy work for which ICANN exists. 
At-Large is not here to do outreach or organize 
and participate in RALOs. These are necessary 
activities to allow us to thrive, but the REAL 
reason we are here is to work with other parts of 
ICANN representing user interests. Anything we 
can do to remove barriers to allowing more 
participation is crucial to our existence.


At 16/07/2017 04:37 PM, Peters Omoragbon wrote:

>Dear Mr. Aziz
>Thank you for your information and once again I 
>apologise for my unavoidable absence during the last call.
>On the issue in reference I oppose to any vote 
>to be taken via electronic means save for at a 
>General Assembly  on the following grounds
>1. Please provide the transcript or link to the 
>transcript of the ALAC Meeting where the 
>decision passed to you by the ALAC Chair was tsken.
>2. Ralos from icann set rules are to set their 
>own guidelines which does not conflict with 
>icann rules of procedure for effective 
>coordination of their (RALOS) activities. If one 
>is to decipher your information it presupposes 
>that ALAC is giving Ralos an ultimatum to take a 
>decision on issue(s) that is yet to receive consensus of the GA
>3. No decision was taken on any item at the GA 
>once the GA resolved that ALL items be referred 
>back to the ROP WORKGROUP and represented to the 
>GA. So even though you are the chair of AFRALO 
>you cannot over rulr the highest decision making body of AFRALO -the GA.
>4. ROP WORKGROUP meeting is yet to be called and 
>that is what should be done asap.
>5. Of what emergent benefit is individual 
>membership that it should override other 
>pressing issues confronting AFRALO to warrant this present pressure?
>Your call for a vote is procedurally defective 
>and undemocratic.  It is an attempt to rush 
>Afralo to make decision through the back door 
>for the benefit of vested interests and individuals.
>We oppose this motion.
>Thank you.
>Pastor Peters Omoragbon
>On 16 Jul 2017 21:07, "Aziz Hilali via 
><<mailto:afri-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>afri-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org> 
>Dear Members,
>As per the information shared during our monthly 
>call, It is been brought to our attention by the 
>ALAC Chair that as per the first ALAC review 
>requirements and the current At-Large Review 
>(on-going) recommendations, the RALOs are tasked 
>with ensuring individual membership. Therefore 
>we need to get this particular item completed with.
>As you may recall during the General Assembly in 
>Johannesburg, this particular recommendation of 
>the working group gained traction but we could 
>not formerly record it due to other 
>recommendations and time constraints. In view of 
>this, I suggest we separate this recommendation 
>on individual membership which already gained 
>traction and pass that now to comply with At-Large reviews requirements.
>For reference, below is the link to the latest 
>version of the "Individual Membership » 
>recommendation distributed in Johannesburg:
>Item 7 of the recommendation currently reads as follows:
>The individual membership issue will be reviewed 
>in 2019 to reconsider their rights and duties of 
>unaffiliated members in light of the 2018 experience.
>I propose to modify it in this way:
>"The individual membership issue will be 
>reviewed by or before 2 years after 
>implementation to reconsider the rights and 
>duties of unaffiliated members in light of 
>experience gained during initial trial"
>I hereby, as AFRALO Chair, call for any 
>objection to approving the conditions under 
>which individual membership will be implemented 
>as presented in the above recommendation.
>Kindly provide your response within 72hrs
>Best regards
>Chers membres,
>D'après les informations partagées lors de 
>notre téléconférence mensuelle, le président 
>de l’ALAC a attiré notre attention sur le 
>fait que les RALO sont appelés à accepter les 
>adhésions individuelles, et ce suivant les 
>exigences de la première revue de l’ALAC et 
>les recommandations de la revue actuelle 
>d’At-Large, Par conséquent, nous devons finir 
>ce point particulier sans plus tarder.
>Comme vous le savez, lors de l’assemblée 
>Générale à Johannesburg, cette recommandation 
>du groupe de travail a été approuvée, mais 
>nous n’avions pas pu l’officialiser à cause 
>du fait que toutes les recommandations étaient 
>dans un même document et que le temps ne nous a 
>pas permis de les finir toutes. Pour cela, je 
>suggère que nous séparons cette recommandation 
>sur l’adhésion individuelle pour se conformer 
>avec les exigence des revues d’At-Large.
>Pour référence, voici le lien de la toute 
>dernière version distribuée à Johannesburg de 
>la recommandation relative à l’adhésion individuelle:
>Le point 7 de la recommandation dit:
>La question des droits et devoirs des membres 
>individuels sera réexaminée en 2019 au vue de l’expérience de 2018.
>Je propose de le modifier pour devenir:
>«La question des droits et devoirs des membres 
>individuels sera réexaminée 2 ans après la 
>mise en oeuvre (ou avant) au vue de l’expérience de la période d’essai».
>En ma qualité de Président d’AFRALO, je 
>demande s’il y a des objections pour 
>l’approbation des conditions sous lesquelles 
>l’adhésion individuelle sera appliquée comme 
>présenté dans la recommandation mentionnée.
>Prière répondre dans les 72 heures.
>Aziz Hilali
>AFRI-Discuss mailing list
><mailto:AFRI-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>AFRI-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>Homepage for the region: <http://www.afralo.org>http://www.afralo.org
>Posting guidelines to ensure machine 
>translations of emails sent to this list are 
>more accurate: 
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>AFRI-Discuss mailing list
>AFRI-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>Homepage for the region: http://www.afralo.org
>Posting guidelines to ensure machine 
>translations of emails sent to this list are 
>more accurate: 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/afri-discuss/attachments/20170717/570b71ca/attachment.html>

More information about the AFRI-Discuss mailing list