Hi all
In the latest teleconference - but also earlier - some discussion came up about terminology.
We are referring to people that are joining RALOs not as members of ALSes but in their individual capacity. Some have used the term “Unaffiliated Individuals”, meaning that they are not “affiliated” via a certified ALS, others have used the term “Individual Users”, not making assumptions about any “affiliation”.
The problem that I personally have with the mention “Unaffiliated Individuals” is that if we have an acceptance procedure for individuals, at successful completion of which the individualswill be part of a RALO in their individual capacity, the result is some sort of recognition - or “affiliation”. However, I can fully acknowledge the fact that not being a native English speaker might lead me to conclusions that are not linguistically correct. I would however call the attention of everybody that non-native-English speakers are, if not even a majority, at least a substantial part of the internet users.
This said, now we have an additional problem, i.e. that we might accept individual users in their own capacity even if they are also members of an ALS, and that would make the term “unaffiliated” meaningless - or at least hard to comprehend.
My personal opinion is therefore that “Unaffiliated Individual” is an incorrect - or at least conducive to mistakes - expression. However, since the name of the WP has been now established, and that I have no intention to go through the bureaucracy to change this name, can we agree that we will for the time being continue to use the “UI” form, even understanding that this might be incorrect?
Otherwise, do I have any other proposal?
Roberto
20 Comments
Alperen Eken
Eduardo:
Define UI as Upcoming Individuals instead of Unaffiliated Individuals.
Alperen Eken
Seun:
Hello,
I really don't see the value in having a member of an ALS to be an individualmember. However it's no red-linner for me if we have majority in support of this.
I suggest we call member membership that is not ALS "individual members" we can then introduce a field on their SOI that then indicates if they are "ALS individual member" or an "unaffiliated individual member".
So in response to the question I will say "maybe"
Regards
Alan Greenberg
Seun, you say that we should call those who do not belong to an ALS "individual members" (which I strongly agree with) but then you say the SoI field should be "unaffiliated individual member".
If we end up allowing ALS members to also be individual members, we probably should no longer use the term unaffiliated.
Alperen Eken
Nadira:
I also have problem with the Unaffiliated individuals (UI) because after they being accepted in their RALO as UI they decide to join a certified ALSes. In this case and if they didn’t update their status they will be able to vote to the consolidated UI vote as the practice in NARALO and APRALO.
If we connect the terminology with the voting rights might get to an easier approach.
Individual members of ALSes they don’t vote but only through their main ALS representative.
I copy here from Alan’s email on the bylaws:
The relevant section of the Bylaws (Section 12.2(d)(viii) currently reads:
If so provided by its Memorandum of Understanding with ICANN, a RALO may also include individual Internet users who are citizens or residents of countries within the RALO's Geographic Region.
Hence I‘m ok with your proposal of “individual users” because it is in the bylaws.
But the issue now how to distinguish between those voting and none voting individual users?
One suggestion is to give the ALS members the term ALS individual users. Still because I’m not native English speaker it sounds to me that they are users of the ALS!!!!
Hadia Elminiawi
I support Seun's suggestion in using the term " individual members". I also do agree that it does not make much sense for an affiliated member to join as an individual member, however do we really care about this? I would say as long as the member does not have voting rights through two different channels this should not be of concern to us. For a member to be able to participate in At-Large work through two different channels: the ALS and the individual membership is a positive thing, again as long as there is no voting rights through both channels.
Alan Greenberg
Hadia, you say "... as long as there is no voting rights through both channels".
A person may be a member of multiple ALSes, thus getting voting rights (to the extent that they really exist for ALS members) through multiple channels. And there is NOTHING we can do about this.
So isn't your restriction problematic?
Hadia Elminiawi
You are correct Alan, I haven't realized that currently you could have a member in multiple ALSs with voting rights through all of them. So unless this is something we would like to address on a wider base, and my initial thought is that it is not possible to do so and maybe even not required, so certainly the restriction in relation to the individual membership does not make much sense.
Eduardo Diaz
Even if you are a member of a single ALS and become an Individual member, your vote as Individual member does not have any major consequences on any final outcome because it is a fraction of a single vote. For example, if there are 100 individual members in a RALO and everyone votes then each individual member will have a weight of 1/100 of a vote.
Alan Greenberg
To even lessen the impact, how many ALSes actually poll all of their members prior to voting on a RALO issue?
I'd be interested in hearing from those in this discussion who are in an ALS.
Eduardo Diaz
Almost never in our case. However, we keep our membership abreast of ICANN issues, opportunities to participate in WGs, Fellowship Programs and Capacity Building webinars.
Filina Natalia
I support Seun's suggestion and Hadia`s addition to it.
And I agree with their thoughts related terminology (Individual member) and opinion that ability to be member of ALS and Individual member (in the same time) does not affect to members who have a desire to be engaged in RALO work as to members who not going to participate in RALOs work.
Gopal Tadepalli
A user is a person who utilizes ICANN At-Large.
Individual can utilize and Contribute.
I think Individual is a better term.
Also, my opinion has been that the qualifier "Unaffiliated" is quite disambiguating in a maximum number of contexts of my participation in ICANN At - Large.
A case in point: Twitter is now seeking a classifier "Individual" and "Organization" for obvious reasons.
Governance is a system by which entities are directed and controlled. It is concerned with structure and processes for decision making, accountability, control and behaviour at the top of an entity. Governance influences how an organisation’s objectives are set and achieved, how risk is monitored and addressed and how performance is optimised.
Need for "Individual":
It is generally believed that the rights of the individual triumph over the community, but the individual is not entirely free from the group. A person becomes part of the whole, willingly or unwillingly, by giving up some freedoms to attain safety and foster social bonds. The idea of "Social Contract" that began with Plato indicates that groups give power to the elites in exchange for protection. However, the individual voluntarily legitimizes people who hold authority.
Gopal T V
Roberto Gaetano
I would like to paste here the comment from David Mackey on 14.09.2020, referencing also some further email contributions, because it is a relevant summary of ideas that we might want to include in the report, should we decide to have a paragraph on why we need the voice of Individual Users in At-Large.
=============
I support Nadira's position of including a paragraph which includes the motivations of individual membership in At-Large including "the learning and bringing the voice of our country or region perspective."
I also support Nadira's position that outreach and recruiting new individual members is outside the scope of this working party, although it should be in our minds as we refine the criteria used to describe what it means to be an individual member of At-Large. Although recruiting new members may be out of scope, I'd like to make sure we don't lose the point that Jonathan Zuck made about "recruiting", or activating, individual members to take on more work responsibilities within the At-Large.
Finally, I'd like to thank Gopal for sharing the history of his relationship with ICANN and At-Large. Even though individual members are designated as "individuals" within At-Large, there's a fundamental reality that individuals do not usually have the same resources (of time and money) to commit to their volunteer effort, and that supporting organizations (like learning institutions) often support their effort in the At-Large community.
Cheers!
David
Alan Greenberg
I'd like to go back to the question we are supposed to be addressing: Why do we need individual RALO members?
The Bylaws that created At-Large make it clear that the intent is to allow any interested individual (as opposed to someone acting on behalf of a company) Internet user in to interest with ICANN via At-Large. The prime method envisioned was via being a member in a local organization that was an ALS. However, the Bylaws also allowed a RALO to have individual members outside of ALSes. Only the NARALO opted for that from the beginning.
The first At-Large review recommended that all RALOs adopt the concept of individual members, so that someone who didn't have an ALS that they could join, or simply didn't want to join an ALS could also participate (at the time, in the other 4 regions, if someone because interested in At-Large and ICANN, they were told to go off and form an ALS!
It took some time, but we are now at the stage where all 5 regions have the concept of an individual members. The details and constructs vary, but the end result is the same for all.
Given the original concept and logic of wanting ALL interested individual Internet users to be ABLE to participate in At-Large, I am unsure why we are debating why we need individual RALO members. The answer is to facilitate participation!
If we don't allow individual RALO members, then how would we ensure that everyone, even someone with no ALS in their country, can participate? We could have a world-wide membership, by passing RALOs, but I don't think that anyone is proposing that.
What we are doing here, is trying to make it as painless as possible for those wishing to be active in our work to do so. Rules (or prohibitions) that do not help achieve that goal need to be considered with due caution.
David Mackey
I agree with Alan.
I believe the question "Why do we need individual RALO members?" is not in the scope of our working party. This question has already been answered, because all five regions have the concept of individual members. Therefore, this issue should be closed.
A better question on which to focus our attention is "How do we increase the participation of individual members to support the mandate and activities of At-Large?". The working party should be focused on making "it as painless as possible for those wishing to be active in our work to do so".
Daniel Khauka Nanghaka
Thank you for posing the question "How do we increase the participation of individual members to support the mandate and activities of At-Large?" and this has been at the heart of Outreach and Engagement.
Daniel Khauka Nanghaka
I think whether we like it or not, We must be able to appreciate the work done by Individual members. We look at inclusiveness, representation of the community and also enhancing the policy development process of At-Large.
The answer to the question is in the Bylaws which has been well articulated by Alan.
Filina Natalia
I fully support Alan's message, and I agree with Daniel.
The result of the UIM party may look like the set of recommendations on how to increase the understanding and opportunities to be involved in RALO`s activities and At-Large processes, which means more effective communication and the clarity of the information transmitted (this question returns us to the ability of ALS representatives to deliver the potential of ALS (=members) to the At-large work), the opportunities to increase the competencies (necessary for the growth within RALO/community), and yet the minimum requirements for keeping the status of an active member, which will always motivate.
Same time I support Gopal`s thoughts: we understand that everyone has own interests to be/become At-Large members.
I suggest to create survey and ASK At-Large members. It may helps us to see this realistic picture and focus on the gaps.
Yrjo Lansipuro
As Alan says, there is no need to debate the question, which has already been answered. But if we want, for the purposes of the report, to know, why independent RALO members want to be independent RALO members, let's ask them. In other words, a quick survey as suggested by Natalia. The results might be enlightening also from the point of ALS'es.
Roberto Gaetano
Folks,
I am looking at open issues, and this is one of them.
Looking at the comments, I see that there has been an agreement to consider the issue closed since December, but in the thread there were interesting consideration that, although out of scope for the current WP, could be considered for further initiatives.
One of the points raised is that we should ask ourselves "How do we increase the participation of individual members to support the mandate and activities of At-Large?”. What we have done in UIM-WP is to analyse and streamline the procedures for allowing RALO Individual Members to participate. However, the next step is to analyse how, once they have joined, they could be more effective in supporting the At-Large mandate and activities.
In some way related to this is the question of “recruitment” - that I would prefer to refer to as “outreach”. The point is how can we be more effective in getting the interest of individual users worldwide.
Both these points are very much in the scope of the Outreach and Engagement Sub-Committee - see https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Subcommittee+on+Outreach+and+Engagement - and I am sure that this Sub-Committee is doing egregious work in developing ways to reach out and engage individual users, but the question is whether there is something that came out form this WP that we can provide as input for them.
So, long story short, I propose to close this issue but include the points above in the “Follow-up Actions” issue for inclusion as comments in the report.
I am posting this email also in both issues on the wiki.
Cheers,
Roberto