From this document you can see that a popular choice is to have applications sent to Staff, who then send them to the relevant RALO - or delegated authority - for approval. A relevant exception is EURALO, where the applications are collected by an association that has the power delegated by EURALO to perform the acceptance process and then notify the result to Staff.
As the Chair of the EURALO Individual Users Association, I believe that there will be no problem in adopting for EURALO a procedure that is similar to the one that is adopted by other RALOs, i.e. to have the application sent to Staff and then processed by us. I have proposed this approach to the EURALO Individual Members - that are actually the members of the EURALO Individual Users Association - and as of today there has been no objection.
Therefore, I would propose that we recommend a procedure that is the same for all RALOs, and that has as a first step an application form filled in by the applicant and sent to Staff.
The next step is what should this application form include, and what are the requirements for approval of an application by an individual. On this topic, we have run a poll - see https://doodle.com/poll/s3vw8g2tu64vzzuh - where all but one participants agreed that all these four items are necessary conditions for acceptance:
acceptance of all the RALO rules
subscription to the RALO mailing list
submission of a Statement of Interest (SoI)
affirmation of interest in learning about and/or participating in ICANN's policy processes
There have been other points proposed, in particular the mention of referees or introducers, i.e. people known by the RALO who sort of “guarantee” that the applicant is “fit” for the role. For these additional conditions, I have suggested that they should not be considered “compulsory conditions” but that they could be included as an optional item.
I am working under the assumption that to have a single form for all RALOs is an unnecessary - and even counterproductive - constraint. Cultural differences across RALOs are so high that we cannot assume that the same details that are important in one part of the world are also relevant worldwide. Therefore I would concentrate on the items on which we have consensus, leaving each RALO free to request additional information by the applicant.
Having received no objections to the outlined procedure, I assume we can consider this as a good starting point.
Maybe there are some questions about the timing for the SoI. There are two possibilities, we can:
either ask the applicant to fill it in as part of the application
or ask him to fill it in after approval of the application
The advantage of the first approach is that the SoI data will be useful for the acceptance of the candidature, while the drawback is that if the candidate is not accepted we will have a sort of “dummy” SoI that is meaningless. Maybe we can have a “pro-forma” SoI that will be finalised only after acceptance - otherwise we must give access to Confluence to an individual who is not yet a Member. Maybe Staff can chime in and give their opinion.
Continuing this discussion, I propose the procedure below.
Let me stress again the point that I do believe that we need a solid procedure that is well documented and can be audited. We also need to make sure that the criteria are respected and that a rejection of a prospective RALO Individual Member is motivated. Finally, we need a process for withdrawal of membership.
Some parts have been taken from the ALS Mobilization WP, as I assume they would apply also for RALO Individual Members, but of course any change is possible. Another assumption is that the decision of accepting or not an applicant stays with the RALO - and this is a difference with the ALS case, where the deciding body is ALAC. This does not mean that a RALO cannot delegate this power to a specific body: for instance in EURALO the process is done by the EURALO Individual Users Association, but this body acts with delegated power from EURALO.
I have highlighted in red the parts where I assume that we need some discussion, because some of the issues have not been raised before. Also, it is important to have feedback from Staff about the feasibility of the procedure. Please disregard the odd formatting generated by pasting the text from my email message - where it looked fine instead.
Cheers, Roberto
=============
RALO Individual Member Acceptance Process
The RALO Individual Members Acceptance process must be thoroughly and carefully documented to help prospective applicants understand what they are entering into and committing to.
Included in this should be an explanation of the difference between the ALAC and At-Large.
Although not a major focus of this background information, there should be a pointer to the ICANN Bylaws which creates and governs the actions of At-Large and the ALAC as well as the ALAC and RALO governance documents.
RALO representatives and At-Large Staff may from time to time provide guidance to prospective RALO Individual Members as part of the ongoing Outreach and Engagement activities.
Process Steps
The Applicant submits an application. The application form is available in the languages supported by the RALO. The form may be filled out in English or the language of the form. For non-English applications, a Google (or equivalent) translation will be done when the application is received.
Any interactions with the applicant will be done either in English and/or the original language as appropriate (using Google translate or Language Services as needed).
New RALO Individual Member applications are listed on the At-Large website [hyperlink] along with the application process status, and ongoing applications may be noted in regular At-Large meetings and reports. The application form (in full or redacted) is not part of this publication.
At-Large Staff will conduct due diligence (DD), reviewing the application and performing necessary tasks in an effort to ensure that the established RALO Individual Member acceptance criteria have been/will be met and to facilitate the easy review of applications by the RALO Leadership. [this should be, in practice, a rather straightforward action considering the acceptance criteria]
For the purposes of this process, the RALO Leadership is defined as the RALO Chair, Vice-Chairs (if any), and Secretariat. In parallel with the start of DD, the application will be forwarded to RALO Leadership – or a body delegated by the RALO Leadership for this purpose - for any initial comments, which should be provided in no more than 7 calendar days.
This DD process may include, without limitation:
verifying that all required questions are answered and that the answers are clear.
checking references, if provided by the applicant;
confirming the identity/existence of the applicant.
Any relevant information accumulated during this process will be added (suitably annotated) to the application form or to the Due Diligence form. The content of the original submitted application should not be altered.
This step is expected to be complete within 7 calendar days.
Upon completion of the due diligence process, the Application (annotated if applicable) and the DD form completed by At-Large Staff will be forwarded to the Leadership of the relevant RALO - or the officer or body delegated by the RALO Leadership.
The RALO will apply its own procedures for accepting or rejecting the application. These procedures may differ from RALO to RALO, but it is recommended that the procedure is described in detail and be posted publicly.
At the completion of the procedure, the RALO Leadership will inform At-Large staff whether:
The RALO accepts the Applicant as RALO Individual Member
The RALO does not accept the Applicant as RALO Individual Member
The RALO Leadership may choose to include a rationale for its decision. In particular, a decision to reject an application should normally include a rationale. A rationale from the RALO may suggest that the applicant reapply after a specific amount of time or after some other conditions are satisfied. If a rationale is included, the RALO Leadership may designate to what extent the rationale shall be public or limited to ALAC Members.
The RALO response should typically be provided no longer than one calendar weekafter receiving the documents.
Decisions to accept, or refuse to accept, a RALO Individual Member shall be subject to review as provided by the ICANN Bylaws, Section 4.2 Reconsideration.
At-Large Staff will notify the Applicant of its Acceptance decision, and, if applicable, provide information on requesting a review of the decision. In the case of a decision to not accept, a rationale for the rejection should normally be included.
An Applicant may withdraw an application at any time. There is no restriction on resubmitting an application or revised application.
Withdrawal of Membership
A RALO Individual Member may have its membership withdrawn at the request of the member or by a decision of the RALO.
If a RALO Individual Member voluntarily decides to give up its membership status, the situation should be duly documented and the RALO Leadership informed. It is the responsibility of the RALO Chair to ensure that proper procedures have been followed, that any issues raised by RALO Members are suitably addressed, and to ratify that the RALO Individual Member no longer has membership status.
A request for the RALO to withdraw Acceptance may be raised by:
RALO leadership;
One or more RALO Members through a request to the Chair or delegate;
At-Large Staff by notification of the ALAC Chair. Staff notification will generally come when Staff becomes aware of a RALO Individual Member which is no longer meeting its obligations [note: in EURALO we had the case of an individual member passing away]
If the withdrawal request is caused by a RALO Individual Member moving to a different region, the member must be informed of the possibility to apply in the new region.
For any request to withdraw membership status not voluntarily requested by the ALS, the rationale for the withdrawal must be formally recorded.
The RALO Individual Member should be notified of the issue and given adequate opportunity to remedy the situation.
A record of all communications or attempted communications must be maintained. The record will also document the rationale for the request to withdraw membership status.
At-Large records should maintain the history of RALO Individual Members that have had their membership withdrawn.
Dear all, Replying here but adding also to the wiki under “Process”.
I wonder, with Alan, to how much detail we must go. The important bit of information here is the proposal to have a periodic review every two years where every RALO Individual Member must confirm that they still comply with all the requirements (one of which is, BTW, to affirm her/his interest in participating in ICANN’s policy processes).
I would suggest that this includes also an affirmation that the SoI is up-to-date.
I agree with Alan that the termination process cannot be just run automatically. I would argue that in the same way the acceptance of a membership application requires an explicit decision of the RALO - or delegated body - the “dual” operation of withdrawal of a membership should require a similar process.
Although there is the need of an explicit action by RALO, I would suggest that the biennial procedure be initiated by Staff after clearance by the RALO.
The thread triggered by Eduardo prompted me to clarify with this email & wiki post the steps that I consider essential for the application process. I would like to make sure that we do not think that something important is missing.
I see the following steps - as indicated in the draft report that you have received:
Submission - this is initiated by the Applicant by sending a compiled application form to Staff
Due Diligence - this is coordinated by Staff and includes the checking that the Applicant complies with all the requirements or affirms his/her intention to do so and the communication with the RALO - or RALO-delegated authority - about the application
Decision - this is responsibility of the RALO - or RALO-delegated authority - who will decide whether to approve the application or not and communicate the outcome to Staff
Completion - this is done by Staff, who communicates the acceptance/rejection to the Applicant, adds the new RALO Individual Member to the membership list and to the relevant email list, checks that the SoI is compiled.
Please note that this is slightly different from what appears in the draft procedure, as I am planning to move the RALO response to Staff from the completion phase to the decision phase. This is done in order to identify a single owner for each step. You may consider this an exaggeration due to some old style Project Management practice, but my personal experience suggests that procedures where the ownership of one or more steps is not clearly defined becomes often an additional (and unnecessary) source of problems.
"Expectations", a key word in this document, seems to have different meaning in the dfraft than in the ALS MOB report. In the latter, it refers to things that are obligatory for an ALS. It should be the same for the IMs. We should take advantage from these reports being prepared in close succession, and make sure that we use the same terminology in both.
Please find below the modification made to the application procedure. These modification have been applied to the draft document and comments have been added for each change.
My understanding from the comments received is that the first paragraph - highlighted in yellow - is too detailed. On the other hand, there is a strong indication from the WP to leave more freedom to each RALO to adapt the procedure to local practices. The suggestion for the text is: "The Applicant fills in the application form designed by the RALO and submits it to Staff via email to [add email address]”
For the same reason the mention of the language and eventual translation is deleted, as each RALO will choose if a language other than English is allowed and how to deal with the translation. It should be noted that, unlike for ALSes, where the whole ALAC is involved in the application acceptance, in this case the decision remains within the RALO.
For confidentiality reasons, there will be no mention of the status of the application in any public web site. Therefore tis part is also deleted.
Process steps - Due Diligence
Following comments received, the title of this step will be changed to “Review”. "Application Review" seems redundant to me, as this whole procedure is about application - otherwis we should have "Application Submission", and similar step titles.
Accordingly, every instance of “Due Diligence” will be changed to “Application Review”.
As suggested by the WP, the mention of a comment phase by the relevant RALO is deleted.
It has been suggested that the confirmation of the identity/existence of the Applicant is not needed. My problem is that if we happen to be flooded by clones - and we have even recent evidence that this practice has not disappeared (UASG had a case a couple of years ago) - I would like to have a safeguard against vote stuffing or even email overload. If this is not done up front by Staff - a Google search should be sufficient, with the result reported to the RALO - this must be done by the RALO and I fear that this will be more likely to become an issue in case of rejection of the application. The matter is open for discussion.
Mention is made that at the end of the review the relevant information is transmitted to the RALO or their delegated body for a decision.
As suggested, there is no indication of the expected completion time for this step.
Process steps - Decision
The acceptance procedure is required to be publicly available.
Process steps - Completion
The rationale for rejection is not going to be made publicly available, but will remain in the records.
About the review of the decision about accepting or rejecting the application, mention to the reconsideration procedure has been replaced by reference to the possibility of filing a complaint with the ICANN Ombudsman.
The chapter on Withdrawal of Membership will be discussed in a separate message.
Your concern does have merit. Although it is unclear what the merits/benefits of overwhelming a RALO with a virtual army of clone members, that doesn't mean someone won't attempt it.
Perhaps we can add a optional step for a one-on-one discussion (ie interview) with applicants as part of the acceptance process.
Alan
At 2021-01-22 03:05 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
It has been suggested that the confirmation of the identity/existence of the Applicant is not needed. My problem is that if we happen to be flooded by clones - and we have even recent evidence that this practice has not disappeared (UASG had a case a couple of years ago) - I would like to have a safeguard against vote stuffing or even email overload. If this is not done up front by Staff - a Google search should be sufficient, with the result reported to the RALO - this must be done by the RALO and I fear that this will be more likely to become an issue in case of rejection of the application. The matter is open for discussion.
Good Governance thrives on making the entry into the system very easy and progressing to the "power positions" in the system arbitrarily difficult. Personally, I strongly suggest that, acceptance of an individual member should not be a tedium with an SOI (Dr. Roberto Gaetano has already noted my opinion) and / or personal interview.
What are our concerns if there are dormant members ? Large democracies happen with around 30% of the population actually voting or wanting to have their say in the governance. The perks associated with the "power positions" stand justified on this flavour of minority.
The policy on voting ought to assure that there is no impetus from within the policy framework to operate as collectives.
<Edit 09 February 2021>
Roughly how many applications for Individual membership happen in a calendar year ? What is the basis for indicating that SOI is in order by the ICANN Staff ?
On an average how long does checking the SOI take for the ICANN Staff ? It cannot be based only on the document structure.
In principle the policy and mechanism are separate. However, no policy making body had longevity without an eye on the mechanism to implement the stated policy.
I am adapting the structure of the SOI from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. A typical SOI needs to include:
Current Employer and Position
Country of Primary Residence
Type of work performed in #1
List of any financial relationship beyond de minimus stock ownership you may have with any company that to your knowledge has a financial relationship or contract with ICANN.
Participation in policy formulation as an Individual whether paid or unpaid. If professional ethical obligations prevent from disclosing this information, the same may please be stated.
Declaration: No Material Interest and Independence of Judgment.
The ICANN staff needs to check completeness and accuracy. How many attempts by ICANN Staff are deemed reasonable number of attempts to complete this task?
What are the rules / guidelines for Compliance Check by the ICANN Staff.
Looking at the At-Large New SOIs Workspace I am under the impression that all your points are covered. Can you please point out to what of your list is missing?
If you mean the compliance check about the application, this is described in the draft report, chapter "Process Steps", sub-chapter "Review" on page 6.
If you mean the checking of the information provided in the SoI, Staff will be able to point you to the rules that are applied, that are not specific to RALO Individual Users but related to all individuals who have an interest in participating to the policy development process, and are therefore outside the scope of the UIM-WP.
To be candid, I avoided the term verification of the details provided. I suppose, it is better to simply indicate that "Verification Procedures for the details provided in the SOI is beyond the scope of UIM-WP.
I confess that I am confused - I am double-checking the items that are still open in this thread because I would like to close it, as further comments in the procedure have been taken place in the draft report Google doc. I am unclear on where in the procedure I should take your comment into account. May I ask you to add it directly in the Google doc at the place you want it, so that we can discuss it during next call?
On the substance of your comment, though, I believe that Staff is not second-guessing the affirmations in the SoI, so the verification of the content of the SoIs are, in fact, not taking place. I will send an email on this subject to Staff and list, feel free to also comment there.
Yes, I surmise that there is no verification happening outside
of a quick scrutiny of the structure of the submission by the ICANN Staff. As advised, on this point, I will comment in the Google Doc draft report. - Gopa T V
/* I am taking the liberty of including this text on this page */
The way in which the internet allows data to be produced, collected, combined, shared, stored, and analyzed is constantly changing and re-defining personal data and what type of protections personal data deserves and can be given. There are different Legal Definitions of Personal Information such as:
European Union: the GDPR
California: CalOPPA
California: CCPA
Canada: PIPEDA
Australia: Privacy Act
Japan - The Act on the Protection of Personal Information (APPI)
Mexico - The Federal Law on the Protection of Personal Data Held by Private Parties
Nigeria - The Nigerian Data Protection Regulation 2019
I have been actively following the Privacy approaches in India since 2010. I wish to highlight that from April 2013 – October 2013, the Centre for Internet and Society, in collaboration with the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry and the Data Security Council of India, held a series of seven Privacy Roundtables across India. I suggest that the wording may please be centered around "Data Protection" procedures of the RALO.
"Data protection" is about securing data against unauthorized access. Data privacy is about authorized access - who has it and who defines it. Data Protection is essentially a technical issue, whereas Data Privacy is a legal one.
Privacy: fundamental human right concerning “the state or condition of being alone, undisturbed, or free from public attention, as a matter of choice or right; freedom from interference or intrusion”
Data Protection: legal mechanism that ensures privacy and refers to the relationship between collection and dissemination of data, technology, the public expectation of privacy, and the legal and political issues surrounding the
Reference:
"Glossary of The Internet Governance Terms (IGG)" prepared by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and The International Information Centre for Terminology (INFOTERM)
In cooperation with The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) , 2017
My Opinion:
ICANN is a private, non-profit technical coordination body. Once again, I suggest using "Data Protection".
May be a Footnote: The Legal Dimension:
Almost every aspect of Internet governance includes a legal component, yet the shaping of a legal framework to mould the rapid development of the Internet is in its early phase. Ethics based approaches are strongly recommended.
I have added "and applicable data protection procedures" in the document - see my comment there about RALOs following ICANN-dictated data protection procedures.
19 Comments
Roberto Gaetano
Dear all
Let me open a discussion on the RALO Individual Member Application Process. Staff has opened an issue on this topic, please see https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/RALO+Individual+Member+Application+Process, to which this email will be posted.
As of today, RALOs have different procedures for accepting applications. A summary document is already part of the reference documents of this WP, and can be seen at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kmOn-v1v-5vxMGbEhIDCGWawDv134U7HTSIV57uxQjQ/edit#gid=0.
From this document you can see that a popular choice is to have applications sent to Staff, who then send them to the relevant RALO - or delegated authority - for approval. A relevant exception is EURALO, where the applications are collected by an association that has the power delegated by EURALO to perform the acceptance process and then notify the result to Staff.
As the Chair of the EURALO Individual Users Association, I believe that there will be no problem in adopting for EURALO a procedure that is similar to the one that is adopted by other RALOs, i.e. to have the application sent to Staff and then processed by us. I have proposed this approach to the EURALO Individual Members - that are actually the members of the EURALO Individual Users Association - and as of today there has been no objection.
Therefore, I would propose that we recommend a procedure that is the same for all RALOs, and that has as a first step an application form filled in by the applicant and sent to Staff.
The next step is what should this application form include, and what are the requirements for approval of an application by an individual. On this topic, we have run a poll - see https://doodle.com/poll/s3vw8g2tu64vzzuh - where all but one participants agreed that all these four items are necessary conditions for acceptance:
There have been other points proposed, in particular the mention of referees or introducers, i.e. people known by the RALO who sort of “guarantee” that the applicant is “fit” for the role. For these additional conditions, I have suggested that they should not be considered “compulsory conditions” but that they could be included as an optional item.
I am working under the assumption that to have a single form for all RALOs is an unnecessary - and even counterproductive - constraint. Cultural differences across RALOs are so high that we cannot assume that the same details that are important in one part of the world are also relevant worldwide. Therefore I would concentrate on the items on which we have consensus, leaving each RALO free to request additional information by the applicant.
So, the procedure should be the following:
Ny objections, comments, suggestions, on the above?
Cheers,
Roberto
Eduardo Diaz
The approach sounds reasonable. No objection here.
Roberto Gaetano
Dear all,
Having received no objections to the outlined procedure, I assume we can consider this as a good starting point.
Maybe there are some questions about the timing for the SoI. There are two possibilities, we can:
The advantage of the first approach is that the SoI data will be useful for the acceptance of the candidature, while the drawback is that if the candidate is not accepted we will have a sort of “dummy” SoI that is meaningless. Maybe we can have a “pro-forma” SoI that will be finalised only after acceptance - otherwise we must give access to Confluence to an individual who is not yet a Member. Maybe Staff can chime in and give their opinion.
Cheers,
Roberto
Roberto Gaetano
Dear all,
Continuing this discussion, I propose the procedure below.
Let me stress again the point that I do believe that we need a solid procedure that is well documented and can be audited. We also need to make sure that the criteria are respected and that a rejection of a prospective RALO Individual Member is motivated. Finally, we need a process for withdrawal of membership.
Some parts have been taken from the ALS Mobilization WP, as I assume they would apply also for RALO Individual Members, but of course any change is possible. Another assumption is that the decision of accepting or not an applicant stays with the RALO - and this is a difference with the ALS case, where the deciding body is ALAC. This does not mean that a RALO cannot delegate this power to a specific body: for instance in EURALO the process is done by the EURALO Individual Users Association, but this body acts with delegated power from EURALO.
I have highlighted in red the parts where I assume that we need some discussion, because some of the issues have not been raised before. Also, it is important to have feedback from Staff about the feasibility of the procedure. Please disregard the odd formatting generated by pasting the text from my email message - where it looked fine instead.
Cheers,
Roberto
=============
RALO Individual Member Acceptance Process
The RALO Individual Members Acceptance process must be thoroughly and carefully documented to help prospective applicants understand what they are entering into and committing to.
Included in this should be an explanation of the difference between the ALAC and At-Large.
Although not a major focus of this background information, there should be a pointer to the ICANN Bylaws which creates and governs the actions of At-Large and the ALAC as well as the ALAC and RALO governance documents.
RALO representatives and At-Large Staff may from time to time provide guidance to prospective RALO Individual Members as part of the ongoing Outreach and Engagement activities.
Process Steps
Any interactions with the applicant will be done either in English and/or the original language as appropriate (using Google translate or Language Services as needed).
New RALO Individual Member applications are listed on the At-Large website [hyperlink] along with the application process status, and ongoing applications may be noted in regular At-Large meetings and reports. The application form (in full or redacted) is not part of this publication.
For the purposes of this process, the RALO Leadership is defined as the RALO Chair, Vice-Chairs (if any), and Secretariat. In parallel with the start of DD, the application will be forwarded to RALO Leadership – or a body delegated by the RALO Leadership for this purpose - for any initial comments, which should be provided in no more than 7 calendar days.
This DD process may include, without limitation:
Any relevant information accumulated during this process will be added (suitably annotated) to the application form or to the Due Diligence form. The content of the original submitted application should not be altered.
This step is expected to be complete within 7 calendar days.
The RALO Leadership may choose to include a rationale for its decision. In particular, a decision to reject an application should normally include a rationale. A rationale from the RALO may suggest that the applicant reapply after a specific amount of time or after some other conditions are satisfied. If a rationale is included, the RALO Leadership may designate to what extent the rationale shall be public or limited to ALAC Members.
The RALO response should typically be provided no longer than one calendar week after receiving the documents.
Decisions to accept, or refuse to accept, a RALO Individual Member shall be subject to review as provided by the ICANN Bylaws, Section 4.2 Reconsideration.
At-Large Staff will notify the Applicant of its Acceptance decision, and, if applicable, provide information on requesting a review of the decision. In the case of a decision to not accept, a rationale for the rejection should normally be included.
Withdrawal of Membership
A RALO Individual Member may have its membership withdrawn at the request of the member or by a decision of the RALO.
Roberto Gaetano
Dear all,
Replying here but adding also to the wiki under “Process”.
I wonder, with Alan, to how much detail we must go. The important bit of information here is the proposal to have a periodic review every two years where every RALO Individual Member must confirm that they still comply with all the requirements (one of which is, BTW, to affirm her/his interest in participating in ICANN’s policy processes).
I would suggest that this includes also an affirmation that the SoI is up-to-date.
I agree with Alan that the termination process cannot be just run automatically. I would argue that in the same way the acceptance of a membership application requires an explicit decision of the RALO - or delegated body - the “dual” operation of withdrawal of a membership should require a similar process.
Although there is the need of an explicit action by RALO, I would suggest that the biennial procedure be initiated by Staff after clearance by the RALO.
Cheers,
Roberto
Roberto Gaetano
Dear all,
The thread triggered by Eduardo prompted me to clarify with this email & wiki post the steps that I consider essential for the application process. I would like to make sure that we do not think that something important is missing.
I see the following steps - as indicated in the draft report that you have received:
Please note that this is slightly different from what appears in the draft procedure, as I am planning to move the RALO response to Staff from the completion phase to the decision phase. This is done in order to identify a single owner for each step. You may consider this an exaggeration due to some old style Project Management practice, but my personal experience suggests that procedures where the ownership of one or more steps is not clearly defined becomes often an additional (and unnecessary) source of problems.
Cheers,
Roberto
Yrjo Lansipuro
"Expectations", a key word in this document, seems to have different meaning in the dfraft than in the ALS MOB report. In the latter, it refers to things that are obligatory for an ALS. It should be the same for the IMs. We should take advantage from these reports being prepared in close succession, and make sure that we use the same terminology in both.
Best,
Yrjö
Roberto Gaetano
Dear all,
Please find below the modification made to the application procedure. These modification have been applied to the draft document and comments have been added for each change.
This email is being pasted in the "RALO Individual Member Application Process” issue on the wiki - see https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/RALO+Individual+Member+Application+Process
Starting at page 6 of the document https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TM8If-lLOh88HzhRPJOGnxqzng_8V6Rsq_Nod4NpGaE
Process steps - Submission
Process steps - Due Diligence
Process steps - Decision
Process steps - Completion
The chapter on Withdrawal of Membership will be discussed in a separate message.
Cheers,
Roberto
Alan Greenberg
Hi Roberto,
Your concern does have merit. Although it is unclear what the merits/benefits of overwhelming a RALO with a virtual army of clone members, that doesn't mean someone won't attempt it.
Perhaps we can add a optional step for a one-on-one discussion (ie interview) with applicants as part of the acceptance process.
Alan
At 2021-01-22 03:05 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Gopal Tadepalli
Good Governance thrives on making the entry into the system very easy and progressing to the "power positions" in the system arbitrarily difficult. Personally, I strongly suggest that, acceptance of an individual member should not be a tedium with an SOI (Dr. Roberto Gaetano has already noted my opinion) and / or personal interview.
What are our concerns if there are dormant members ? Large democracies happen with around 30% of the population actually voting or wanting to have their say in the governance. The perks associated with the "power positions" stand justified on this flavour of minority.
The policy on voting ought to assure that there is no impetus from within the policy framework to operate as collectives.
<Edit 09 February 2021>
Roughly how many applications for Individual membership happen in a calendar year ? What is the basis for indicating that SOI is in order by the ICANN Staff ?
On an average how long does checking the SOI take for the ICANN Staff ? It cannot be based only on the document structure.
In principle the policy and mechanism are separate. However, no policy making body had longevity without an eye on the mechanism to implement the stated policy.
Gopal T V
Gopal Tadepalli
I am adapting the structure of the SOI from the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. A typical SOI needs to include:
The ICANN staff needs to check completeness and accuracy. How many attempts by ICANN Staff are deemed reasonable number of attempts to complete this task?
What are the rules / guidelines for Compliance Check by the ICANN Staff.
Gopal T V
Roberto Gaetano
Looking at the At-Large New SOIs Workspace I am under the impression that all your points are covered. Can you please point out to what of your list is missing?
Gopal Tadepalli
Need Clarifications on:
What are the rules / guidelines for Compliance Check by the ICANN Staff.?
Gopal T V
Roberto Gaetano
If you mean the compliance check about the application, this is described in the draft report, chapter "Process Steps", sub-chapter "Review" on page 6.
If you mean the checking of the information provided in the SoI, Staff will be able to point you to the rules that are applied, that are not specific to RALO Individual Users but related to all individuals who have an interest in participating to the policy development process, and are therefore outside the scope of the UIM-WP.
Gopal Tadepalli
To be candid, I avoided the term verification of the details provided. I suppose, it is better to simply indicate that "Verification Procedures for the details provided in the SOI is beyond the scope of UIM-WP.
Gopal T V
Roberto Gaetano
Gopal,
I confess that I am confused - I am double-checking the items that are still open in this thread because I would like to close it, as further comments in the procedure have been taken place in the draft report Google doc. I am unclear on where in the procedure I should take your comment into account. May I ask you to add it directly in the Google doc at the place you want it, so that we can discuss it during next call?
On the substance of your comment, though, I believe that Staff is not second-guessing the affirmations in the SoI, so the verification of the content of the SoIs are, in fact, not taking place. I will send an email on this subject to Staff and list, feel free to also comment there.
Gopal Tadepalli
Yes, I surmise that there is no verification happening outside
of a quick scrutiny of the structure of the submission by the ICANN Staff. As advised, on this point, I will comment in the Google Doc draft report. - Gopa T V
Gopal Tadepalli
/* I am taking the liberty of including this text on this page */
The way in which the internet allows data to be produced, collected, combined, shared, stored, and analyzed is constantly changing and re-defining personal data and what type of protections personal data deserves and can be given. There are different Legal Definitions of Personal Information such as:
I have been actively following the Privacy approaches in India since 2010. I wish to highlight that from April 2013 – October 2013, the Centre for Internet and Society, in collaboration with the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry and the Data Security Council of India, held a series of seven Privacy Roundtables across India. I suggest that the wording may please be centered around "Data Protection" procedures of the RALO.
"Data protection" is about securing data against unauthorized access. Data privacy is about authorized access - who has it and who defines it. Data Protection is essentially a technical issue, whereas Data Privacy is a legal one.
Privacy:
fundamental human right concerning “the state or condition of being alone, undisturbed, or free from public attention, as a matter of choice or right; freedom from interference or intrusion”
Data Protection:
legal mechanism that ensures privacy and refers to the relationship between collection and dissemination of data, technology, the public expectation of privacy, and the legal and political issues surrounding the
Reference:
"Glossary of The Internet Governance Terms (IGG)" prepared by United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and The International Information Centre for Terminology (INFOTERM)
In cooperation with
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) , 2017
My Opinion:
ICANN is a private, non-profit technical coordination body. Once again, I suggest using "Data Protection".
May be a Footnote: The Legal Dimension:
Almost every aspect of Internet governance includes a legal component, yet the shaping of a legal framework to mould the rapid development of the Internet is in its early phase. Ethics based approaches are strongly recommended.
Gopal T V
Roberto Gaetano
I have added "and applicable data protection procedures" in the document - see my comment there about RALOs following ICANN-dictated data protection procedures.