ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[alac] RE: Draft on structure criteria

  • To: "ALAC" <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [alac] RE: Draft on structure criteria
  • From: "Denise Michel" <denisemichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 16:47:13 -0800


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 5:50 AM
>To: Denise Michel
>Subject: Draft on structure criteria
>First of all, I'm not sure why we are talking about criteria for
>accreditation in Regions "without a RALO". According to the ICANN
>Bylaws, accreditation goes through the ALAC and the Board-established
>criteria independently from the fact that a RALO exists or not. RALOs
>don't officially have a role in the ALS accreditation process.

**No RALOs exist yet, of course, but when they do, RALOs will have the
ability to propose other criteria/guidelines/processes for At-Large
Structures in their region and could be involved in ALS creation (note bylaw
section on "..type of structure that best fits the customs and character of
its Geographic Region")

>(possibly you should number the bullet points in the next draft, so
>that it's easier to refer to them)
>I'd suggest a change on the second one - you should perhaps split this
>in two parts. One is that the ALS should predominantly reflect the
>interests of individual users; the other one is that it should be
>related to the Region for which it is applying. The bullet point is
>fine for the first one if you remove references to the "citizens... in
>the Region".

**the 2nd bullet includes bylaw requirements that must be followed, but we
can, of course, add to them.  I think, however, your following suggestion
may conflict with the bylaws.

About the second one, we have to find a way to
>accommodate global organizations; so I'd put it this way:
>  - an ALS may require accreditation for one or more Regions;
>  - to be accredited for a given Region, the ALS must have at least
>(10) individual members that are citizens or residents in that Region;
>  - these members have to sign and send to ICANN a support statement
>for the accreditation request (which isn't a bad thing in general, I
>think, because it actually makes a little harder to put up completely
>fake organizations for the sole purpose of getting accredited, and
>leaves some paper trace about potential fakes)
>  - the ALS appoints a contact/representative for each of the Regions
>for which it is accredited, chosen among one of the individual
>signatories from that Region (this to ensure that even in the
>organizational RALO model there is an involvement of the ALS members
>from the Region)

>In the first bullet point, you should remove "based within... Region"
>if we're going to have a per-Region accreditation mechanism as the one
>described above.

**see note above
>About the fourth, the MoU should be signed even if there are no ALS
>yet - only, it should become operational when a minimal threshold is
>reached. Perhaps there should be an aggregated individual threshold -
>ie 100 individuals as a sum of the memberships of the ALSs.

**The intended construct is ALSs are created first, and then they come
together, reach agreement on characteristics of their RALO, and propose an
MOU to ICANN.  Could you elaborate on the construct you have in mind?
Who/what organizations should have the authority to sign an MOU right now?


Denise Michel

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy