The proposed draft report outline is the following:
Details on the Working Party (composition, meetings, etc) - this is just a formal part, no details about the content of the discussion
Expectations from Individuals - will list why we have Individuals that are not ALS members, what we expect from them, participation, etc.
Individuals accreditation process - how can Individuals apply, is there a due diligence, etc.
Proposed Bylaws changes - if any
Let’s have first a discussion on whether there is something missing - or if something does not belong to the report. The content of each part of the report will be linked to one or more issues being discussed in the wiki.
As discussed already, minority positions will be reported. My inclination would be to include them in the body of the report, immediately after the majority opinion for each chapter, but I am also open to have a separate chapter grouping minority views. The rationale for having them in the body of the text is to have a global compact view, topic by topic, for whom has to make the final decision.
I don't much care whether minority positions are included in-line or separately, but I really hope that we put our efforts (and our debates) into coming to consensus and thus avoiding the need for minority positions. That will make for a MUCH stronger report.
If we have so much disagreement that how we present minority positions is really critical, they we have failed and are (magically) expecting that the ALAC when it gets our report will be able to decide on the issues that we couldn't.
I think we can leave some minority positions documented in the wiki only, especially if the position is outside the scope of what our working-party is mandated to look at. Longterm At-Large community discussions should not get in the way of mobilizing RALO individual members. A record in the wiki is a good way to acknowledge the position without blocking mobilization.
Becoming a bit more verbose on the chat I sent in the call on 14 December 2020 towards the fag of the call.
Most possible heading in the outline of the report: What We Will Expect from a RALO Individual Member
We all have a natural human wish to be liked by the other members of our group. Most of us don’t want to be perceived as "spoil sports" when others seem to be pleased. This wish for “social cohesion” is both the boon and bane of any attempt evolving a consensus. People often experience pressure towards conformity and hence consensus may be due to "casualness' or 'informality" even after good time and good number of meetings.
Can a vote be sought after three meetings on an Agenda Item and consensus is not yet in sight ? I suggest an algorithmic approach rather than "one index finger = one vote" method that does not expect great skill from the voter.
Assumption: The agenda item is a point for making well considered decision.
"The single most important factor is whether each individual is giving their true, unbiased opinion". I think every aspect UIM WP should reflect this.
"People sit in a room, they don’t air their real differences, a false and sloppy consensus papers over those underlying differences, and they go back to their offices and continue to work at cross purposes." - Richard Holbrooke, "Discussions in the corridors of power", Afghanistan Policy 2010
Also to be thought about is "how to avoid":
“Abilene Paradox,” talks about groups collectively arriving at a decision that no one, in particular, is enthusiastic about.
Just begun studying the report nicely prepared by Dr. Roberto Gaetano. Please note that, this submission to the Wiki will be edited as necessary until the next meeting on 11 January 2021.
Should there be a "deferred" action on the application for Individual Membership?
Should there be a "exactly once resubmit" action on the application for Individual Membership with an upper bound of 4 weeks ?
RALO Individual Member as a term is not transparent unless it is something like APRALO Individual Member. Hence the term is not really a definition. I am of the opinion to retain "Unaffiliated Individual Member" with all due regards to the other members in the Working Party and the deliberations so far.
<Edit: 10 January 2021> Also based on the other discussions it may progress as AP + NA RALO Individual Member and so on <End Edit>
To my mind, the term "Unaffiliated" factors the EURALO goal that is nicely worded as follows.
EURALO Individuals’ Associationaims at providing a ‘home’ for individuals interested in participating in the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbering) processes but do not have a home like a constituency or an ALS (At-Large Structure), and thus, it aims at providing new opportunities for them to engage more actively in the policy development processes within ICANN.
As discussed on 4 January 2021, EURALO makes this association an default ALS.
In my humble opinion, all individuals seeking membership to a RALO need not be in this category.
I did express my position on the need for "Unaffiliated" as term earlier but I am game for going with the majority opinion.
<Edit: 10 January 2021> VOTING: I have also been studying the decision making by voting in International Organizations such as WTO and World Bank. The core concern is "Methods of preference aggregation on voting behavior". We need to adopt a method with eyes wide open. <End Edit>
I suggest that, some mention about the next steps in the progress of this report through the pertinent ICANN committee may also be included.
I am not sure to understand the point about "deferred action" - maybe we need to clarify it unless that was solved in the discussion during the call.
About "RALO Individual Member", I agree that this will become fully clear when the RALO is specified - as in "APRALO Individual Member". However, I thought that it was going to be clear enough, and there was no need to list all cases. If needed, we can say "xxRALO Individual Member", where xx is either AF, AP, EU, LAC or NA - but that might sound strange to all those who are not mathematicians by training
It was my intention to add the next steps, but it is not clear to me what those are. Ideas and proposals are welcome.
1 : to allow (someone else) to decide or choose something You have more experience with this, so I'm going todeferto you.deferringto the experts. 2 : deferto (something) : to agree to follow (someone else's decision, a tradition, etc.)
I am sorry, I still think that "Unaffiliated" is the best term that also ensures "Upward Compatibility" with the existing context. Will wait for others to take a call.
I understand the word, what I don't understand is how to apply it in this context.
Specifically, you wrote: "Should there be a "deferred" action on the application for Individual Membership?". What action do you want to "defer"? The acceptance of the application or what else? Maybe the application itself? And deferred to whom? Who should take further action beyond the RALO Leadership - or body to whom the RALO Leadership has delegated authority?
In short, I do not understand what is the modified flow of the procedure that you are suggesting.
About the other comment, and the term "Unaffiliated", there has been a long discussion, and we have a clear majority against "unaffiliated". I understand that whoever is in the minority is not fully satisfied, but I have insisted repeatedly on the fact that we provide only a recommendation, and therefore we must include in our report the "minority views". I have well understood that the decision about "RALO Individual Members" versus "Unaffiliated Individuals" is a rough consensus (in IETF terms) but not unanimous consensus, and will note your disagreement in the report.
Many thanks. I can think of one "Use Case" in the context of "Deferred Action". In case the "Verification of Mail Id" of the applicant gets delayed in joining the mailing list. What are the options ?
I see that you have added your useful comments in the draft report, thank you for doing that. What I believe we can close is this issue about the "outline" - obviously for the content of the report the discussion has just started and further contributions are welcome.
Considering that now we have a draft report on Doodle Doc I would consider this issue closed. Please let me know if there are any objections before the next teleconference.
13 Comments
Roberto Gaetano
The proposed draft report outline is the following:
Let’s have first a discussion on whether there is something missing - or if something does not belong to the report. The content of each part of the report will be linked to one or more issues being discussed in the wiki.
As discussed already, minority positions will be reported. My inclination would be to include them in the body of the report, immediately after the majority opinion for each chapter, but I am also open to have a separate chapter grouping minority views. The rationale for having them in the body of the text is to have a global compact view, topic by topic, for whom has to make the final decision.
Alan Greenberg
I don't much care whether minority positions are included in-line or separately, but I really hope that we put our efforts (and our debates) into coming to consensus and thus avoiding the need for minority positions. That will make for a MUCH stronger report.
If we have so much disagreement that how we present minority positions is really critical, they we have failed and are (magically) expecting that the ALAC when it gets our report will be able to decide on the issues that we couldn't.
Alan
Eduardo Diaz
I would expand #3 to add a decertification process as well.
-ed
David Mackey
I think we can leave some minority positions documented in the wiki only, especially if the position is outside the scope of what our working-party is mandated to look at. Longterm At-Large community discussions should not get in the way of mobilizing RALO individual members. A record in the wiki is a good way to acknowledge the position without blocking mobilization.
Roberto Gaetano
Dear all,
I have prepared a short outline of the report, that I would like to briefly explain during today’s call.
I am copying this message on the Wiki, under the issue “Outline of the report” (not surprisingly)
Best regards,
Roberto
Introduction
Working Party Formation and Process
Working Party Mandate and Objectives
Terminology | Glossary | Definitions
What We Will Expect from a RALO Individual Member
Criteria for RALO Individual Membership
RALO Individual Membership and ALS Membership
RALO Individual Member Voting
RALO Individual Member Accreditation Process
Process Steps
Withdrawal of Accreditation
Proposed Bylaw Changes (if any)
Next Steps
Gopal Tadepalli
Becoming a bit more verbose on the chat I sent in the call on 14 December 2020 towards the fag of the call.
Most possible heading in the outline of the report: What We Will Expect from a RALO Individual Member
We all have a natural human wish to be liked by the other members of our group. Most of us don’t want to be perceived as "spoil sports" when others seem to be pleased. This wish for “social cohesion” is both the boon and bane of any attempt evolving a consensus. People often experience pressure towards conformity and hence consensus may be due to "casualness' or 'informality" even after good time and good number of meetings.
Can a vote be sought after three meetings on an Agenda Item and consensus is not yet in sight ? I suggest an algorithmic approach rather than "one index finger = one vote" method that does not expect great skill from the voter.
Assumption: The agenda item is a point for making well considered decision.
"The single most important factor is whether each individual is giving their true, unbiased opinion". I think every aspect UIM WP should reflect this.
"People sit in a room, they don’t air their real differences, a false and sloppy consensus papers over those underlying differences, and they go back to their offices and continue to work at cross purposes." - Richard Holbrooke, "Discussions in the corridors of power", Afghanistan Policy 2010
Also to be thought about is "how to avoid":
2. Groupthink.
Your thoughts....
Gopal T V
Gopal Tadepalli
Just begun studying the report nicely prepared by Dr. Roberto Gaetano. Please note that, this submission to the Wiki will be edited as necessary until the next meeting on 11 January 2021.
Should there be a "deferred" action on the application for Individual Membership?
Should there be a "exactly once resubmit" action on the application for Individual Membership with an upper bound of 4 weeks ?
RALO Individual Member as a term is not transparent unless it is something like APRALO Individual Member. Hence the term is not really a definition. I am of the opinion to retain "Unaffiliated Individual Member" with all due regards to the other members in the Working Party and the deliberations so far.
<Edit: 10 January 2021> Also based on the other discussions it may progress as AP + NA RALO Individual Member and so on <End Edit>
To my mind, the term "Unaffiliated" factors the EURALO goal that is nicely worded as follows.
EURALO Individuals’ Association aims at providing a ‘home’ for individuals interested in participating in the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbering) processes but do not have a home like a constituency or an ALS (At-Large Structure), and thus, it aims at providing new opportunities for them to engage more actively in the policy development processes within ICANN.
As discussed on 4 January 2021, EURALO makes this association an default ALS.
In my humble opinion, all individuals seeking membership to a RALO need not be in this category.
I did express my position on the need for "Unaffiliated" as term earlier but I am game for going with the majority opinion.
<Edit: 10 January 2021> VOTING: I have also been studying the decision making by voting in International Organizations such as WTO and World Bank. The core concern is "Methods of preference aggregation on voting behavior". We need to adopt a method with eyes wide open. <End Edit>
I suggest that, some mention about the next steps in the progress of this report through the pertinent ICANN committee may also be included.
Gopal T V
Roberto Gaetano
I am not sure to understand the point about "deferred action" - maybe we need to clarify it unless that was solved in the discussion during the call.
About "RALO Individual Member", I agree that this will become fully clear when the RALO is specified - as in "APRALO Individual Member". However, I thought that it was going to be clear enough, and there was no need to list all cases. If needed, we can say "xxRALO Individual Member", where xx is either AF, AP, EU, LAC or NA - but that might sound strange to all those who are not mathematicians by training
It was my intention to add the next steps, but it is not clear to me what those are. Ideas and proposals are welcome.
Gopal Tadepalli
Deferred Action:
1 : to allow (someone else) to decide or choose something You have more experience with this, so I'm going to defer to you. deferring to the experts. 2 : defer to (something) : to agree to follow (someone else's decision, a tradition, etc.)
I am sorry, I still think that "Unaffiliated" is the best term that also ensures "Upward Compatibility" with the existing context. Will wait for others to take a call.
Gopal T V
Roberto Gaetano
Dear Gopal,
I understand the word, what I don't understand is how to apply it in this context.
Specifically, you wrote: "Should there be a "deferred" action on the application for Individual Membership?". What action do you want to "defer"? The acceptance of the application or what else? Maybe the application itself? And deferred to whom? Who should take further action beyond the RALO Leadership - or body to whom the RALO Leadership has delegated authority?
In short, I do not understand what is the modified flow of the procedure that you are suggesting.
About the other comment, and the term "Unaffiliated", there has been a long discussion, and we have a clear majority against "unaffiliated". I understand that whoever is in the minority is not fully satisfied, but I have insisted repeatedly on the fact that we provide only a recommendation, and therefore we must include in our report the "minority views". I have well understood that the decision about "RALO Individual Members" versus "Unaffiliated Individuals" is a rough consensus (in IETF terms) but not unanimous consensus, and will note your disagreement in the report.
Gopal Tadepalli
Many thanks. I can think of one "Use Case" in the context of "Deferred Action". In case the "Verification of Mail Id" of the applicant gets delayed in joining the mailing list. What are the options ?
Roberto Gaetano
Good point, thanks - I now understand better.
I see that you have added your useful comments in the draft report, thank you for doing that. What I believe we can close is this issue about the "outline" - obviously for the content of the report the discussion has just started and further contributions are welcome.
Roberto Gaetano
Considering that now we have a draft report on Doodle Doc I would consider this issue closed.
Please let me know if there are any objections before the next teleconference.