Re: [alac] [Fwd: Re: [governance] RALOs without halos]
All, after all these years of not building up RALOs, and still not having a concept on how end-users interests could be served best by ALAC, I am surprised by the public proposal of an EU-RALO structure with a *time limit* for discussion to the *15th of February!*
As new EU-ALAC member, I do not understand why my EU-fellow ALACs chose a way which does not even give us the time to contact other organisations and individuals who are not on ALAC- or IG-mailing-lists and discuss this proposal.
In ALAC, with all its new members, we were just discussing in a very concrete and productive way how to improve our working structures and how to best organize At-Large and do outreach. One of us even volunteered to fully concentrate on that last issue and take responsibility that action is going to be taken. We wanted to have an open discussion on this on our new website which will be launched very soon and is supposed to be our central tool for communication.
Now a different website of an ALS is used to host this discussion. It is always good to get support by regional At-Large, but in this case it is something that matters to all, and we all wanted to have an exchange of opinion on RALO structure *before* we start (different) regional versions of RALOs - or agree to support other structures, which already came up in the discussion of the Internet Governance list.
We clearly pointed at the problem of attracting more Internet user groups, individuals and organisations to participate in ALAC and we all know it is not just a "problem of mediation" but a problem of an organisational structure within ICANN.
One of our deepest concerns is, that a RALO just looks as if it gives endusers interest a voice, but instead rather serves clubmanship (it is hard to find the right english word for it) and new forms of bureaucracy.
But I also know, it is always hard to come up with a first proposal and it certainly helps to have a fruitful discussion.
Therefore I would like to make the following remarks on that EU-RALO proposal:
I. The timeline does not help to get good results.
II. There is no definition of aims and principles. To say, the "mission ... will be that of constituting a channel for participation by the European individual Internet users into the activities of ICANN..." sounds strange in the age of global internet and even more concerning its very central corporation ICANN. Participation via email has no borders - except for language and access to technical infrastructure, which is a problem we have to face. So, individual user activists rather focus on special issues not on region, but to give endusers interest a voice and say in ICANN and help formulate these interests, regional aspects should be taken into account (eg. problem of many different languages, a different legal system in comparison to the US eg. concerning privacy,...)
III. It is good that it is planned to finish the exclusion of individuals and to have both: organizational as well as individual members.
IV. Does the structure of one representative per each organisation, one per every 34 individuals (with decreasing ratio as the number of individual member increases...) help to get people involved and participate in endusers/consumer rights issues? And if we go by the logic of numbers, how to deal with a really large organisation of e.g. 2,4 million members (my trade union ;-)) in comparison to organisations with a small amount of members? So to solve that problem, isn't direct participation the more effective and just way?
And why do we need representatives electing representatives? Why should an elected "Executive Council" elect a "Chair and a Vice-Chair"?
VI. Concerning funding: Yes, we do need money - for specific issues, eg. translations, workshops on internet consumer rights issues etc.
So, a little more, than what Bret wrote in his eMail, but still "light-weight and inexpensive". "At-Large structures... as a series designed to share infomation..." eMail is almost sufficient (and speaking the same language makes it easier).
I think a wiki on our website would help to get the issues sorted.
Bret Fausett wrote: