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

[Winthrop Yu]

   Just some thoughts ...

> Dev:
>     - The motivation for ALSes to market to individuals in their country to
>     join At-Large is not there as organisations would seek to have persons
>     join and assist their organisation first than be involved ICANN At-Large.
>
   Not necessarily. Instead at ISOC-PH it's the willing and able *individuals* 
who decide which issues to focus on, gather like-minded members and get help 
from the chapter/ALS' other members who may not wish to be as deeply or 
continuously engaged on a particular issue.

   I expect that for each ALS there are Internet issues that are top-of-mind 
in-country, for example - i.a. online freedom and net neutrality. Clearly one 
problem would be how to raise awareness about ICANN such that ICANN's issues 
rise on those local top-of-mind rankings. The challenge here is that ICANN 
issues are (understandably) ICANN-centric and often seem far-removed from the 
more urgent issues that concern local Netizens. Thus, as we as a chapter/ALS 
cannot dictate which issues to focus on, then active individuals will naturally 
gravitate towards and engage in those specific issues which seem most important 
to them and where they feel they can best contribute.

   That being said, it does help when an ICANN rep (like the one who flew in 
last year 2016) has a chance to sit down, chat and get to know at least the 
chapter/ALS officers. This is certainly appreciated and we hope to see her again 
this year. It is hardly helpful if an ICANN rep (like the one who flew-in in 
2015 and 2014) immediately flys-out again after delivering his presentation, or 
(as in early 2014) when senior ICANN officers fly-in at the behest of in-country 
VIPs but without any contact or engagement with the local ALS. This simply 
exacerbates the impression that ICANN's concerns are far removed from those of 
the ALS and local Netizens.

   Thus i would tend to agree with Maureen ...

> Maureen:
> YET... despite the argument I provide above, my personal preference is still
> the current ALS system but working more towards encouraging more individual
> members to become more active within their ALS at a local level, and
> providing evidence of their contribution towards end-user participation into
> At-Large policy discussions.

   With the additional proviso that it's not just about getting more members to 
become active, but also that ICANN / At-Large issues should be more relevant to 
the local context, so that members who are inclined to be active will be 
encouraged to engage on those (ICANN) issues.

WYn