Re: [alac] ICANN bylaw changes on At-Large **your comments needed**
- To: Thomas Roessler <roessler-mobile@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [alac] ICANN bylaw changes on At-Large **your comments needed**
- From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:58:57 -0500 (EST)
I agree it's best to leave the structural detail out of the bylaws for
While we want them to make clear and irrevocable that the RALOs and
Structures represent the voices of individuals not organizations, we don't
want a formalism in the bylaws to block participation of groups that
genuinely represent individuals but also accept organizational members.
It depends which is the more likely scenario: an individuals-only policy
blocks ISOC chapter and other individual participation, or lack of such a
policy permits some company to "organize" an At-Large Structure and
capture its RALO? I tend to think the problem of preventing organizational
capture should be left to the RALOs in the first instance; and that too
detailed a policy may hamper the groups most effectively representing
On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> Thanks for bringing this up again.
> On 2003-02-18 12:29:33 -0800, Denise Michel wrote:
> > **Should the ALAC consider changing the bylaws to allow
> > organizations (with appropriate missions) that have both
> > individual and organizational/corporate memberships to be
> > designated as At-Large Structures? For example, the Association
> > for Internet Professionals (AIP) has both individual and
> > corporate memberships, and some ISOC chapters also have this
> > construct.
> > **What about organizations that have a mission of
> > advancing/protecting individual Internet users' interests,
> > involve individuals in their policy development and other
> > activities, and could contribute to ICANN policy/issue debates,
> > but are not membership organizations? Should they be allowed to
> > have some role in the At Large infrastructure? If so, what? For
> > example, the Consumers' Union/Consumer Policy Institute and EPIC
> > (Electronic Privacy Information Center) may be examples of this
> > type of organization.
> My proposal (still -- I'm attaching my earlier message on this) is
> to leave the bylaw language as open as possible, with the
> understanding that details MUST be sorted out in the RALOs' MoUs
> with ICANN, and that it'll be ICANN's and the ALAC's responsibility
> to ensure that the MoU's criteria match basic principles of regional
> focus, and of focus on individual users' interests.