[At-Large] [ALAC] Idea for an alternative to the EMM proposed in the At-Large Review
aidanoblia at gmail.com
Wed Feb 15 12:35:45 UTC 2017
According to Maureen and Winthrop in preference over the current ALS model
over the ISOC model. The ISOC-style country unification model could be
allowed to unify all individual Internet users who did not participate in
an ALs. There, the two systems would coexist: on the one hand all the ALs
of a country and on the other side ISOC, as a separate organization,
representing the individual voices of the individual users of that country
that do not integrate any ALs.
But the direct voice of the ALS in ICANN seems to me preferable and more
transparent because it is the expression of different internal groups
within the same country, which are sometimes quite different or have
different interests. If these voices have to be agreed upon in a single
voice, the expression of their interests is nullified, because they have to
be agreed upon in a single voice and therefore would not be reflecting
exactly the position of the different parties that comprise it, different
parts of the community of Internet.
2017-02-15 7:49 GMT-03:00 Winthrop Yu <w.yu at gmx.net>:
> Just some thoughts ...
>> - The motivation for ALSes to market to individuals in their country
>> join At-Large is not there as organisations would seek to have persons
>> join and assist their organisation first than be involved ICANN
>> 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 ...
>> YET... despite the argument I provide above, my personal preference is
>> the current ALS system but working more towards encouraging more
>> members to become more active within their ALS at a local level, and
>> providing evidence of their contribution towards end-user participation
>> 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.
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the At-Large