Re: [alac] Selecting Our Successors

[ICANN At-Large - Denise Michel <michel@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for your comments, Annette.  Please keep in mind that ICANN will 
not sign an MOU to establish/recognize a RALO unless it meets the basic 
requirements (see <http://www.alac.icann.org/framework.htm>) of which 
opennesss and the involvement of new, additional user groups is key.   A 
RALO can not be a "closed shop."  The EURALO proposal under discussion 
does not strike me as "closed."  It would be useful if you could 
elaborate on your concern or, better yet, suggest changes to make it 
more open and more useful for outreach, translation, information 
sharing, identification of priority EU user issues, etc. Perhaps you'd 
also be interested in building in "benchmarks" or some required actions 
to help ensure that the EURALO evolves in a certain way?

I appreciate that you think a larger number of organizations should be 
involved in order to create a RALO.  However, there is no magic number 
to involve and represent the world's individual Internet users and the 
bylaws/RALO formation guidelines recognize the practical reality that 
you have to start somewhere.  The underlying objective of the ALS-RALO 
structure is to get more of the At-Large community informed about, and 
involved in (if they choose), the issues before ICANN (the "content" as 
you say).

At this point, it is critical to create the initial structure and 
empower *the user groups who have shown an interest thus far* to 
determine At-Large's future.  There will always be objections to the 
current At-Large model; the model will always be imperfect; there will 
always be ideas for a new one (several US and European professors have 
advanced their careers publishing about this, and I'm sure they'll 
continue to do so).  To continue to delay, however, puts Europe's user 
groups at a disadvantage in terms of At-Large involvement in ICANN.

Regarding the "organisational tenaciousness"  and "certain persistance" 
you fear occurring with future EU RALO leaders -- some At-Large groups' 
might, at this point, have the same fear about Interim ALAC members who 
are supposed to be replaced by RALOs ... the creation of which keeps 
getting delayed.

Regards,

Denise
michel@xxxxxxxxx

Annette Muehlberg wrote:
> I am wondering why a structure which does not work for your region 
> should work  for the European region. What is it, that makes this RALO 
> structure work better in Europe?
> The fact, that out of eight or nine ALSes seven belong to the regional 
> chapters of one organisation? (And even those are not complete - the 
> large ones of UK, France and Germany are missing)
>
> Starting a RALO with that group of members does not serve the function 
> of legitimizing At-Large work and makes outreach work even more 
> complicated.
>
> It is already hard to get Europeans involved in ICANN work, but not 
> because we do not have enough people active in serving internet endusers 
> interests/consumers rights. Actually, Europe has quite a lot of very 
> interesting consumer and user organisations as well as individuals 
> working in that field.
>
> They were not attracted by the excisting structures to get involved 
> because they are impact oriented and not keen in bureaucracy. The RALO 
> structure as proposed now worsens that problem. Instead of showing how 
> and on which issues they can have an impact, the outlined EU-RALO will 
> be a closed shop for those who want to spend their time fighting for 
> persons not for content. Participation will be reduced to electing those 
> who will finally elect the relevant two persons.
>
> Sebastian,
> I do not share your hope that "if you build it, they will come" - there 
> is some interrelation between *what you build* and them *being 
> attracted* to come.
>
> And Vittorio already told me, attracting others is not the point of this 
> proposal on EU-RALO structure:
> In his opinion I  "misunderstood the point of the exercise, which is not 
> to involve new people in the discussion, but to conclude the interim 
> process and agree on the EURALO structure among those who already 
> applied to participate."
>
> Vittorio,
> this is really a very strange approach to start a regional at-large 
> organisation. Though I do not think your intention is to establish a 
> closed shop, I reckon that this will be the outcome of that structure.
>
> To avoid that, skip the dead line of the 15th of february and let us try 
> to define functions, regional at-large organisations could and should 
> fulfill and a strategy to get endusers more involved in ICANN policy 
> making.
>
> Siavash, Bret,
> experience shows, that if you establish an organisation with its own 
> charter/by-laws, it is hard to change it even if the model prooves not 
> to work. There is something like a certain organisational tenaciousness 
> - and of cause the fact, that there are people elected on this bases for 
> two years contributes to a certain persistance.
> People who want to get involved with internet consumer issues in ICANN 
> do not want to put their energy in changing the rules of an organisation 
> first, before they can start to work.
>
> So, let us start to discuss possible and effective forms of 
> participation, possible regional issues and structures, proposals for 
> how to deal with the problem of different languages etc. And then let us 
> start an "experiment" which is open to further changes.
>
> Annette
>
>
> Bret Fausett wrote:
>
> > > I think that there are pros and cons with your proposal....
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm glad the proposal prompted a discussion on these issues. I wanted  
> > to get it out now because I was aware that Europe and Asia-Pacific  
> > are moving forward first and they might set some "precedent" for the  
> > rest of us to follow.
> >
> > Izumi and Vittorio are correct, of course, that what works for one  
> > region might not be right for another region. Personally, I share a  
> > lot of Wendy's skepticism that the layers of structures built into  
> > the ALAC model dilute the value of participation to the point that  
> > ALSs might well wonder why they should be involved at all. I'm not  
> > sure what a "Council" at the RALO level will do, other than elect  
> > ALAC members and be a conduit for information to and from the ALAC,  
> > but if the European ALSs think it would be valuable, then we should  
> > defer to that.
> >
> > Siavash made the good point that anything we try, whether the  
> > proposal I floated or the "Council" model, ought to be viewed as  
> > experimental, and we can change the model if it proves not to work.
>
>
> >          Bret