[At-Large] [ALAC] Idea for an alternative to the EMM proposed in the At-Large Review

Wed Feb 15 03:39:54 UTC 2017

I would like to add that in this model, At-Large chapters should allow
organizations such as ISOC chapters or similar to join as members in these.
-ed

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:27 PM Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee at gmail.com>
wrote:

> To answer Alan's questions:
>
> * Just who is it in ICANN who will establish and organize these chapters,
> and who will carry out any formalities that are needed to allow them to
> exist (such as incorporation or creating Bylaws that may be required in
> some jurisdictions)
>
> The chapters will be online At-Large chapters with consistent rules,
> criteria and process set by the ALAC and ICANN. As such, I'm not thinking
> these need to be registered as formal organisations in any country.
> Think instead of a RALO, we have a CALO (Country At-Large Organisation)
> with the same online support offered by ICANN that's offered to RALOs
> (mailing list, wiki accounts, online voting, online conference room support)
>
> * How do you ensure that they do not wither following the exuberance of
> creating them (a major problem with ISOC Chapters)?
>
> Because ICANN staff will run the facilities of the online At-Large
> Chapters, ICANN and the At-Large Community (RALO and ALAC) will have
> metrics as to who are the persons involved in At-Large, how often they
> contribute to At-Large, how policy issues are discussed, etc. Online
> At-Large Chapters will make At-Large become more accountable and
> transparent. Marketing of At-Large Chapters is greatly simplifed - join
> At-Large online and you're assigned to the At-Large Chapter in the country.
>
> * How do you handle disputes that may arise between different factions in
> a country?
>
> The same way as disputes should be handled with different factions in a
> RALO.
>
> * How do we transition from where we are now to this new model, without
> losing the relatively few hard workers we have in each country?
>
> The relatively few hard workers would not be lost.
> ALS representatives and members of the ALSes interested in ICANN issues
> from the interests of Internet end users would complete an online
> application form to join At-Large. If there is concern from "anyone"
> joining that may have conflicts of interest relating to the interests of
> end users, the ALAC and RALOs can do a "certified" application process,
> similar to how organisations become accredited At-Large Structures (RALO
> advice on member applications, ALAC decides whether to accept the RALO
> advice)
>
> Such At-Large persons accepted would then be added to the appropriate
> At-Large Chapter list, their RALO list, wiki accounts created (if new) by
> Staff.
>
> The At-Large chapter will be like an ALS in the ALAC/RALO/ALS model.
>
> The At-large chapters members can interact on policy issues, received
> updates from staff just as RALOs are notified, participate in WGs, just as
> before.
> The At-Large chapter would have to select a chair to act on behalf of the
> At-Large Chapter. The At-Large chapter can try to work by consensus to
> select a member to be a chair but if there are multiple nominations within
> the Chapter for the chair, then online elections can be held which are done
> by ICANN Staff. The Chair of the At-Large Chapter can participate in the
> RALO affairs requiring consensus support or voting on behalf of the
> At-Large Chapter. The At-Large Chapter members can work by consensus or
> have a vote if consensus can't be reached to direct the chair as to how how
> the At-Large Chapter will vote in RALO affairs.
>
> Dev Anand
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dev Anand
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 2:32 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> wrote:
>
> If this, or any other major reorganization of At-Large is to happen, it
> will need to be with careful planning and attention to details.
>
> One of the major flaws of the ITEMS EMM is that it glosses over "details"
> that are in fact major issues. Two examples are just how is it that people
> will suddenly know about us and flock here and exactly how do we recognize
> and track "active" individuals.
>
> In this model the questions are different. Here are just a few of them:
>
> - Just who is it in ICANN who will establish and organize these chapters,
> and who will carry out any formalities that are needed to allow them to
> exist (such as incorporation or creating Bylaws that may be required in
> some jurisdictions)
> - How do you ensure that they do not wither following the exuberance of
> creating them (a major problem with ISOC Chapters)?
> - How do you handle disputes that may arise between different factions in
> a country?
> - How do we transition from where we are now to this new model, without
> losing the relatively few hard workers we have in each country?
>
> This may well be a viable model, and certainly one that could have been
> created at the start. Given the knowledge of the ISOC Chapter model, I have
> no doubt it was seriously considered. If it is going to be sold, it needs
> to be pretty bullet-proof.
>
> Alan
>
> At 13/02/2017 09:04 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
>
> Here's an idea for an alternative proposal for At-Large to the EMM model
> proposed in the 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
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Content-Disposition: inline
> X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics:
>
>
> 1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:OlX6aU+5ilJYGkCWBr9VC+nQMTZ5q/p8UnI3T/Mu/bC4A5V8b6iXOxCxXT5WLXkkGfp+Ms3PkGdL88763uaqZMnaYlIy2fgUoJPagXmx9AMCDiOLcs80hUeDAIVCL9mk53bgDc4GNivpTix9SZwYGw==
> X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery:
>         ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028);
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20170215/bbe46395/attachment-0001.html>