AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large Priority Activities - 2022

Tijani BEN JEMAA Proposal

Criteria of involvement and participation

  • Meeting: attend AFRALO conference calls and any other virtual or face to face meeting
                    Non attendance or lake of participation in face to face and/or virtual meetings won't be counted if they are justified and documented, and if the concerned member apologized in the appropriate time
  • Contribution: Contribute to the AFRALO discussions and/or to the ICANN policy development through mailing lists or wiki pages, as well as participation in the Working Groups
  • Vote: Vote at
    • the elections of AFRALO officers and representatives within and on various ICANN constituencies
    • any other kind of vote (ratification of statement, survey, etc.)
  • Local Activity: Have a real presence on the ground (Local Activity, communicate with the individual end-users of the country and the region, etc.).

ALS status

  • Active
  • Less active
  • Standby  

 Threshold Parameters 

  1. Active:
    1. Participation in at least 2 meetings every 3 months  
    2. Making at least 3 Contributions every 6 months
    3. Voting in at least 2 of the last 4 consecutive polls
    4. Submission of at least 1 local activity Reports or more every 6 months 
  1. Less active:
    1. Participation in at least 1 meeting every 3 months
    2. Making at least 2 Contributions every 6 months
    3. Voting in at least 1 of the last 4 consecutive polls
    4. Submission of at least 1 local activity Report every year
  1. Standby:
    1. No participation in meetings within 3 months
    2. Less than 2 Contributions every 6 months
    3. No Vote in the last 4 consecutive polls
    4. No local activity Report in the last year 

ALS Status: 

      (a or b) and c and d

Example:  

To be active, an ALS must

  • participate in at least 2 meetings every 3 months or make at least 3 contributions every 6 months
    and
  • vote in 2 of the last 4 consecutive polls
    and
  • provide at least 1 local activity reports every 6 months

 

 

 

 


  • No labels

20 Comments

  1. Beran Dondeh Gillen

    Active: Participation in at least 2 meetings EVERY 3 months Making at least 3 Contributions EVERY 6 months Voting in at least 2 of the last 4 consecutive polls submission of at least 2 OR MORE local activity Reports EVERY 6 months Less active: NOTE: SHOULD THIS BE INACTIVE OR LESS ACTIVE?? Participation in AT LEAST 1 meeting EVERY 3 months Making at least 2 Contributions EVERY 6 months Voting in at least 1 of the last 4 consecutive polls Submission of at least 1 local activity Report EVERY 6 months Standby: No participation in meetings WITHIN 3 months Less than 2 Contributions EVERY 6 months No Vote in the last 4 consecutive polls No local activity Report in the last 6 months ALS Status: (a or b) and c and d Example: To be active, an ALS must participate in at least 2 meetings EVERY 3 months or make at least 3 contributions EVERY 6 month and vote in 2 of the last 4 consecutive polls and provide 2 OR MORE local activity reports EVERY 6 months

  2. Fatimata Seye Sylla

    I think we should add to the Definition of the threshold Parameters the clause of non-justified absence or lack of participation of the member.  This will open up another list of possible reasons acceptable for not attending or not participating for a certain period of time. I think as human beings, we have to take certain criteria into account.

    We will also need to define what we mean by "making a contribution"

     

  3. Tijani Ben Jemaa

    @At Beran, remarks taken; thank you

    @Fatimata, I understand your point. I think that we may add in the definition of criteria of involvement the following: "Non attendance or lake of participation in face to face and/or virtual meetings won't be counted if they are justified and documented, and if the concerned member apologizes in the appropriate time"

     

    1. Beran Dondeh Gillen

      Sorry Tijani, was using my phone and the format is terrible. 

      Just realizing when i logged in with my laptop

       

       

  4. Baudouin Schombe

    To join Tijani, Fatimati and Beran,   I would just understand. When we say ALs active, is it only "be active" in ICANN activities? Or should we consider ALs in its global activities at local, national and / or international level ??

  5. Beran Dondeh Gillen

    Baudouin this is a good question. However since we are dealing with AFRALO, I think this will only relate to AFRALO / At Large/ ICANN activities. That's my understanding because this is the space we are dealing with right now. We do not over see IGF or other activities and therefore it would be difficult to judge ALSes based on that. I believe we can only deal with what is under our purview. 

    Thats my understanding....... 

     

    Beran 

  6. Tijani Ben Jemaa

    Baudouin and Beran,

    In the following part of the proposal, you can notice that submitting 2 reports on local activities of the ALS each 6 months is one of the conditions for the "active" status of the ALS

    ALS Status: 

          (a or b) and c and d

    Example:  

    To be active, an ALS must

    • participate in at least 2 meetings every 3 months or make at least 3 contributions every 6 months
      and
    • vote in 2 of the last 4 consecutive polls
      and
    • provide at least 2 local activity reports every 6 months

      I hope I answered your questions 

    1. Baudouin Schombe

       Actually Tijani, thank you for the correction. But when the report should be posted, should send it by mailing list or are did it a space provided for the filing of reports?

  7. Tijani Ben Jemaa

    In fact, all those details will be addressed in the implementation which will be the final piece of our work. Now, we are setting the performances and the metrics to mesure them. 

  8. Baudouin Schombe

    As far as performance is concerned, I propose that the Als join in working groups according to the themes under way or the concerns identified and raised at the regional or sub-regional level. Which themes respond to their interests and areas of competence.

  9. Silvia Vivanco

    Comments posted on behalf of Seun Ojedeji (comment sent to the ROP WG mailing list on Mon 4/17/2017)

    1. On performance metrics, I suggest that the 6 months occurrences be updated to 12months. The reason is that some ALS activities are largely online and asking them to provide 2 reports every 6 months is too much. I also think the review should be done on annual basis to allow for enough data and activity to analyse and to reduce staff workload. This will also allow us review the outcome during AFRALO GA

    2. On the weighted voting, I do not think we require it at the moment. I believe we need participation improved first and no need for restricting stuff. I do not know of any collaboration of ALSes per country in the past and even if it happens so long as it's on the positive side I am fine. Overall I like the independence of ALSes maintained and let's not tie them together.

    3. Am fine with the text of Members performance write up.

  10. Philip F Johnson

    The points made by all of you concerning "active ALS" are well justifiable. However, We need to also considered activities of ALS at their respective local level to justified whether they are "truly representing the END USERS within the ICANN Internet Governance structure for their respective localities . that is "furthering the development and or contributing to policies that influence the technical or policy coordination of the Doman Name System to better serve end users" as well as "advocating for the interests of end users in thier localities: 

     ALSes should be considered active when they are involved in "Engagement and outreach activities within their communities"

    AFRALO Leaders therefore need to encourage " Spotlight on ALSes on a Monthly bases in order to understand or to know what ALSes are doing in their localities. 

    1. Baudouin Schombe

      Johnson has just made a fascinating suggestion. In fact, the activities must be multidirectional while remaining focused on everything that relates not only to the Internet but to the development of digital technology having as epicenter the Internet.

      Each Als has one or more areas of activity in this direction according to the local or national context. It is obvious that there is always something to do given that we often have problems and multidemensional concerns about the internet and its applications.

      Engagement for the benefit of the communities remains a primary objective.
      But what needs to be stressed, at the local or national level, we are often faced with problems of concretizing our actions on the financial plane and, more specifically, on political realities.

      We experienced this problem during the DNS study.

      Thank you Johnson for making this suggestion that deserves attention.

  11. Seun Ojedeji

    Hello,

    It seem to me that this is yet to be updated to reflect the 1 report per year? Secondly an ALS who is achieving "a,b and c" but not d will be automatically put on standby. I really do think that isn't fair on such an ALS

    Regards

  12. Tijani Ben Jemaa

    Even if we made the final reading twice: one in 2014 and a second when we resumed our work, here is my response to your comments on this topic:

    According to my recollection, the majority of the group members proposed 2 reports per year (1 report per 6 month) instead of 2 reports per 6 months that was proposed.

    Seun, do you propose that ALS activities on the ground not to be considered for the ALS performance metrics?

    1. Beran Dondeh Gillen

      Tijani that is correct. During the last  call we  did have a  majority (myself  included) agreeing to 2 reports a year.

    2. Seun Ojedeji

      No I do not propose that we do not ask for report at all but that asking for report and non-provision should not put an ALS on standby especially if "a to c" is achieved. It should also not put the ALS on active but rather "less active" will be ideal. The question is should a no report be enough to decertify an ALS? I don't think that alone should be enough especially if the ALS is meeting up with "a to c". On the number of reports well, my preference is 1 per year and I have earlier stated my reasons. However if there​ is already consensus within group for 2 per year then I rest my case. Even at that, the text at the time of writing the comment still reads 2 for 6months.

  13. Seun Ojedeji

    That said, I hope we can have second reading for the "weighted vote" as we've done for this as well. Regards

  14. Tijani Ben Jemaa

    Comments from Fatimata

    On decertification, I really think that the annual activity report has to be reconsidered.  If an ALS, for any reason did not have important activities to report on during one year, the ALS would just have to explain and may be seek for support from oour community instead of being penalized.  


    For the ALS status, I think we can be a little bit more flexible by reducing by one the number of minimum activities required per level.  Of course we will take into account apologies.

  15. Chokri Ben Romdhane

    Thank you  Tijani Ben Jemaa  for the great Job , but I wonder what is the goal of those Metrics ? and who will use those Metrics(ALAC, Afralo,...) !  are we reviewing or adapting  the metrics established by ALS Mobilization Working Party https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kr4uH3IGv-LNzsO27twEiTlmRBUUAab5JzgNqGChqwY/edit  to some AFRALO specifics needs like RoP reviews?