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

Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch apisan at unam.mx
Wed Feb 15 18:39:16 UTC 2017


Aida, your note throws even starker light on the failures of both the ITEMS report and the "ICANN At Large Chapters proposal."

Both make an untenable analogy between either individuals in the EMM or the Chapters in the At-Large Chapters model and the ISOC or Rotary chapters: membership in ISOC or Rotary Club is voluntary and is based on an affinity of ideas and mission with the organization, locally and/or globally.

The "ICANN Chapters" model provides only one way to associate in order to interact with ICANN for at large, individual users and denies the diversity and self-organization of the communities.

Christopher Wilkinson has pointed to an additional, severe flaw of the Chapters model: more intervention by staff. Doesn't anybody here remember the intense controversies about "a staff-driven ICANN"? (they are still raging around gTLDs and the IANA oversight transition.)

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: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Aida Noblia [aidanoblia at gmail.com]
Enviado el: miércoles, 15 de febrero de 2017 10:25
Hasta: Vanda Scartezini
CC: at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Idea for an alternative to the EMM proposed in the At-Large Review

I agree with Vanda. Individuals can not be disconnected from RALOS. If there is one ISOC chapter per country as that organization has, all the individuals of a country are under a structure like ISOC, all these structures that are a Chapter by each country, should be under the structure of the corresponding RALO.

All this seems to me a complication that at the moment is added to other policy issues that seem to be priorities to enter into contemplating some individual individuals that could be incorporated. But we do not know how many will be or if they will really have a stimulus to incorporate in that way.

Then there would be the issue of voting ... Realmemte this is an extra complication that should be resolved with more time. In addition: we do not know how many people can integrate as well, we have no indication that this will really help to bring more people to work in ICANN. Perhaps the most practical and also necessary is to focus efforts on integrating more people who belong to the ALs that already exist into the work of ICANN. ..

I still think that the current structure is good and that before changing it would have to adjust its operation and efficiency.



2017-02-15 10:58 GMT-03:00 Vanda Scartezini <vanda at scartezini.org<mailto:vanda at scartezini.org>>:
Agree with the problem- be part of an ALS normally demands engagement in its work locally. So I am in favor to have individuals as members – even in LACRALO we do not have this possibility. May become a good change.
What I am not in favor is to have individuals disconnected from the Ralos. Ralos will have no clear meaning to grow with individuals running in parallel , working whatever they want to with not alignment with related Ralo.
Individuals can also join another groups under ICANN struture but will be hard to have their work adding value to a particular region if disconnected from the formal structure. Having a parallel structure to RALOs do not add efficiency to budget and local interest either. Just add another group to dispute both.

Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253<tel:%2B55%2011%203266.6253>
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464<tel:%2B%2055%2011%2098181.1464>
Sorry for any typos.
HAPPY 2017!

On 2/15/17, 8:49 AM, "at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Winthrop Yu" <at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of w.yu at gmx.net<mailto:w.yu at gmx.net>> wrote:

       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.


    At-Large mailing list
    At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>

    At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

At-Large mailing list
At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Aida Noblia
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20170215/ee3d0123/attachment.html>

More information about the At-Large mailing list