[alac] Proposal: ALAC comment on ERC's Proposed Clarifications, Corrections, ...

[Thomas Roessler <roessler-mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The ALAC should make a statement in response to ERC's proposed
clarifications etc. to the new bylaws, posted on 8 February.  We'd
need to have closure on this by 22 February, but it would probably
be good if we'd come to a common position earlier.

>From my point of view, the key point of concern is XI.2.4.h which
describes at-large structures: This paragraph is listing some of the
criteria the ALAC would have to apply to future at-large structures.
These criteria are currently spelled out in terms of requirements on
the at-large structure's membership: Membership is basically
restricted to individuals who are citizens and/or members of a given
geographical region.  There must not be any organizational members,
but organizations may participate as non-members.  (Whatever this
means.)

In practice, there are quite a few concerns that these criteria
might exclude, for instance, many ISOC chapters, and many other
organizations which could be considered "natural" candidates for
at-large structures.  

Since it will be hard to figure out well-defined criteria which
match each region's (and each structure's) needs within a couple of
days, I'd propose to open up the at-large structure criteria as far
as possible by stating general a principle, but leaving that
principle's implementation to negotiations.

More precisely, I'd propose that paragraph (h) read as follows:

        (h) Each RALO shall be comprised of self-supporting At-Large
        Structures within its Geographic Region, certified to meet
        the requirements of the RALO's Memorandum of Understanding
        with ICANN according to paragraph 4(i) of this Section.  If
        so provided by its memorandum of understanding with ICANN, a
        RALO may also have as its members individual Internet users
        who are citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's
        Geographic Region. Any RALO must, through its at-large
        structures or through direct membership, be open for
        participation of all individual Internet users who are
        citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's
        Geographic Region (as defined in Section 5 of Article VI).

This wording would not yet exclude ANY possible at-large structure
from participating in a RALO; that decision is completely deferred
to (i).  However, it does provide a minimum openness standard for
any RALO.

        (i) The ALAC is responsible for certifying organizations as
        meeting the criteria and standards for At-Large Structures.
        The criteria and standards for certification of At-Large
        Structures within a each Geographic Region shall be
        established by the Board and based on recommendations of the
        ALAC, so that each RALO is afforded the type of structure
        that best fits its Geographic Region's customs and
        characteristics. Those criteria and standards shall be
        stated in the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and
        the RALO for that Geographic Region. They shall ensure that
        At-Large Structures appropriately represent and involve
        individual Internet users who are citizens or residents of
        the RALO's geographical region. Decisions to certify or
        de-certify an At-Large Structure as meeting the applicable
        criteria and standards shall require a 2/3 vote of all the
        members of the ALAC and shall be subject to review according
        to procedures the Board may establish. The ALAC may also
        give advice as to whether a prospective At-Large Structure
        meets the applicable criteria and standards.
        
The proposed change to this paragraph would state a general
principle for at-large structures in a given region, but would not
make any statements on the implementation of that principle.  That
implementation would be a matter of negotiation between ICANN and a
possible at-large structure.

Comments?  Should I draft a formal comment from ALAC to ERC which
would propose these changes?
-- 
Thomas Roessler                         <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>