Roberto:
I am aware that the ICANN-69 meeting is using very much of your time - it has been for me more time consuming that I have anticipated, and some prep sessions for the Global IGF are already starting - but I am nevertheless trying to move forward.
Notwithstanding the terminology - please see my earlier message - the question remains on whether a member of a certified At-Large Structure can also have some formal relationship with her/his RALO in own capacity.
I have gone through all the records - email, chat, teleconference log, etc. - and I came to the conclusion that we have a wide majority who agrees in allowing this, although some concern remains about the possibility that this “double membership” could create an unfair advantage. Mostly, these concerns are related to voting, to individuals that are also in a leadership position in their ALSes, or otherwise acquire a status that might create a conflict of interest.
I therefore believe that the question we need to address is not whether a member of an ALS be also a member of a RALO in his/her own capacity but rather under which conditions - and safeguards - this will be allowed. So the real question is not “if” but “how”.
This said, since not everybody has been vocal on the question, and there might be a “silent majority” that I am not accounting for, my idea would be to start a poll asking whether a member of an ALS be also a member of a RALO in his/her own capacity with possible answers being:
- Yes, no problem
- No, no way
- Maybe - the devil is in the details
If we have a consensus for a straight “Yes” or “No” it would be a loss of time to go into details on the whereabout the status as unaffiliated individual will conflict with the status of ALS member. If, on the other hand, as I assume reading the feedback so far, the answer to the poll is a “Maybe”, depending on conditions and safeguards, we can safely start addressing these conditions and safeguards one by one.
Unless I hear a loud and clear opposition - or a different proposal - I will arrange for a poll as described above before the end of the week.
Extra:
As anticipated, I am launching the Doodle poll https://doodle.com/poll/z9ademtqnek62qav [doodle.com] on the question “Can a member of an ALS be also an individual member of a RALO?”. The options are the ones I have anticipated in my earlier message, i.e.:
- Yes, without limitations nor conditions
- Yes, with limitations or conditions
- No
Please feel free to add in the comment field what are the limitations or conditions you would like to apply, in case you choose the middle option. Of course, feel also free to add any comment in case you choose any of the other two.
I am also keeping track of the comments that I have received so far. I propose to give one full week for you to choose one option, and therefore close the poll at 23:59 UTC on Friday, 30 October, so that we can discuss the results and agree on a way forward on the call on the following Monday.
If there is a clear majority for “Yes” or “No”, the matter will be closed. On the other hand, if the result is “Yes, with conditions” we will start the discussion on what conditions we want to apply. Please remember that we are talking now, for the time being, of ALS membership and Individual membership in the same RALO - we will discuss membership in a different RALO at a later time.
25 Comments
Alperen Eken
Natalia:
I didn't find the comment field and would like to add here my comment to the answer NO:
I agree with the idea "to open all the doors and give all the opportunities for active participation". I believe that the existing rule "to be a member of the ALS OR to be an individual non affiliated member" provides these opportunities without changing the current structure and essence of At-Large. And without creating any further conflicts of interest.
I still don't see any barriers to being active and to be involved as an ALS member - it's a matter of adding directly the contact information (for receiving news and announcements) and participating in activities such as mails, calls, meetings, and working groups. With the following opportunity to take the leader`s positions and become an influencer.
Alperen Eken
Nadira:
Dear Natalia,
Reading your second paragraph, means that you’re allowing ALS members to be on the RALO list. Here you’re putting some restrictions on them. Hence your choice should be the
I also don’t understand where is the conflict of interest happens?
Alperen Eken
Natalia:
Dear Nadira,
It turns out that we have an understanding of the essence, but a difference in definitions. Well, let me explain - an ALS Member already has the ability to beactive within the RALO and does not need to register itself as an individual member.
As discussed earlier, a possible conflict of interest is an option of diverse opinions on the content of the one issue with other representatives of one ALS. But, the successful way to reach consensus with all the opinions in At-large shows that this is not a problem or a barrier.
So, my answer is No. even if is not so popular-)
Alperen Eken
Alan:
Natalia, can you be more specific as to what the potential "conflict of interest" is?
Alperen Eken
Alan:
RALO mailing lists are open to ANYONE and certainly ALS members. I hope we are not going anywhere near talking about restricting that! See http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-E-mailGuide-2018-10 [tinyurl.com], pages 4-6.
Alperen Eken
Natalia:
Dear Alan,
I explain it this way:
A possible conflict of interest (if we allow one person to be an ALS member and an individual member at the same time) - when the team`s interest (ALStraditions and internal relationships) of an ALS member to support the opinion/voice of colleagues (main rep) from his ALS may prevent this member from making an independent opinion as an individual member.
In the case where an unlimited number of members of the ALS take part in the work of the RALO, it is expected that opinion/ALS solutions - already balanced and debated within the ALS.
And yes, Thank you again, we are already open to all ALS members (RALO mailing list). As is the additional answer for my NO too
Alperen Eken
Nadira: (In line)
Inline
Nadira: Not in all RALOs members of ALS has the abilities to be active within the RALO.
Nadira: Most of ALS representatives don’t go their community to check on their position, usually if they are part of a working group they present their opinion. Hence if two members of the same ALS has different opinion then that is ok. The only time the RALO seeks the opinion of the ALS if a survey circulated to each ALS.
Nadira: @Alan, the only possible restriction on the ALS members when they are on the RALO list that they can’t cast their votes.
Alperen Eken
Maureen:
Hi Natalia
My thinking is similar to Alans in that they are already individual members within their ALS and (in most instances) are allowed to act in their own capacity as individual members within their region and in At-Large or ICANN for that matter, so why change? We can deal with "in most instances" on an individual basis because it is rare.
I selected YES because I think that individuals within At-Large should and already ARE allowed to be BOTH a member of an ALS member (for joining together and perhaps leading their ICANN-related community outreach activities) and as an individual member who has a right to express their view as an individual Internet user on any matter that is being discussed within At-Large or whatever ICANN community they may be a part of.
Each individual's registration defines the status of ALS or unaffiliated individual member which makes sense to me.
But the UI registration expectation should ask what their policy interest area is, as well as how they will carry out their outreach role . These are the responsibilities of every member of At-Large. (Within At-Large, policy can relate to operational policy or DNS policy - so they can have a choice.)
Alperen Eken
Natalia:
Dear Maureen,
Thank you for the explanation, it matters for me.
As you say, everyone already acts as an individual (It does not depend on affiliated he/she or not). And there's no point in changing anything.
I don't stand in opposition with my NO, I just (again) think there are no obstacles.
However, if the ALS members register as individuals, we see two signals:
Positive - the member is active and has a desire to be involved.
Negative - there are problems in ALS with the ability of other members to receive the information or to be involved in the activities of RALO, as Nadira says.
Alperen Eken
Maureen:
Thanks Natalia. The same goes with my YES with no conditions vote.
As for Nadira's case, have any other ALS members experienced difficulties regarding their ability to participate or not getting information directly from ICANN or through their ALS. We can always deal with individual cases like this.. but it shouldn't impact on an overall policy.
Alperen Eken
Nadira: (Inline)
On Sat, 31 Oct 2020 at 12:28 AM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
NA: the only time the RALO members officially vote (not in working groups) is for the RALO leadership positions. Here it is only the ALS main representative and all the unaffiliated individual when their votes is consolidated by one vote. Here what I meant any one other than the previously listed are not allowed to vote.
NA: I heard Sean says that ALS individual members are not allowed to be on the AFRALO mailing list.
Alperen Eken
Maureen:
Hi Nadira
Although RALOs can make their own rules, Id be surprised if individual members could be excluded from a RALO mailing list - that doesnt sound right somehow. We can check.
M
Alperen Eken
Alan:
It is an integral part of the ALAC RoP and cannot unilaterally be changed by a RALO.
Alperen Eken
Nadira:
Thanks Alan, if all RALOs as per ALAC RoP allows any members of any ALS to join their RALO and/or at-large mailing lists then the only issue that this party has to work on is define the “unaffiliated” individual members and their rights and the process to be followed when they join any accredited ALS.
Sarah Kiden
AFRALO Leadership can correct me if I am wrong.
I think in our case one cannot be a member of an ALS and an individual member. Applicants who are already part of an ALS are considered AFRALO members through their affiliation. Individual members are asked if they are not members of an ALS. Also the mailing list is open for anyone - ALS members, unaffiliated individual members or observers.
Roberto Gaetano
Just to understand better how it works today in AFRALO. What happens if you discover that an individual member is also a member of an ALS? Do you remove the person form the individual user list? And when an organization, of which an individual is a member, becomes a certified ALS? How do you know that an individual user is not a member of an ALS - or even more than one? What happens if in a discussion - or even in a working group - a member of an ALS has an opinion that is dissenting from the position of the official representative of the ALS?
I am asking these questions because if we do not allow a member of an ALS to be also an individual member we must have established rules to deal with this cases - and they need to be written down (which I know is not the case now for EURALO, therefore I am asking for AFRALO).
Sarah Kiden
Hi Roberto, apologies for the late response. Please see my responses in blue font below.
What happens if you discover that an individual member is also a member of an ALS? Do you remove the person form the individual user list?
So far, this has not been a problem. This "check" is done before an applicant is accepted as an individual member. Normally we ask them if they are already members of a ALS (we may send the list of ALSes). All our ALS and individual applications are shared with during our monthly calls (just name, country and maybe profession). AFRALO members may occasionally identify if someone is a member of an ALS. In the case that they confirm that they are a member of an ALS, we encourage them to join the AFRALO mailing list. There are no restrictions to participation once they join.
And when an organization, of which an individual is a member, becomes a certified ALS? How do you know that an individual user is not a member of an ALS - or even more than one?
We have had one case where an individual member applies for their organization to become an ALS. In that case, the member wrote to AFRALO Leaders and Staff, asking to be removed as an individual member. There is no way to know if an individual member is a member of an ALS or more than one, unless they tell us or someone tells us during our monthly calls.
What happens if in a discussion - or even in a working group - a member of an ALS has an opinion that is dissenting from the position of the official representative of the ALS?
I must admit that I have not seen this scenario. I have only heard people stating if they are speaking in personal capacity or on behalf of the ALS.
Sarah Kiden
I would also like to add that currently AFRALO is reviewing the individual membership rules of procedures. This was one of the things that was agreed in 2017 when we voted to start allowing individual members. We were supposed to review this after 2 years. This discussion will be helpful in the process. We are also sending out a survey to individual members. Please see details AFRALO WG on the review of the Operating Principles 2020- Membership section
Yrjo Lansipuro
The meeting of the UIM-WP today (16 Nov) helped me to understand, why some ALS members might like to become individual members, while keeping their ALS membership. I had not thought that any ALS would constrain its members from giving their full contribution to At-Large policy (or other) work, and that, in order to break free, they also would need to become individual members. I hope such cases will remain exceptions. In EURALO, we have made an effort to find experts on various ICANN-related policy topics within ALS'es (Including Individual Users' Association) and to encourage them to participate in policy work as such. In any case, we should avoid giving a signal that in order to be an active participant on ICANN-related matters (as opposed to other interests an ALS may have), double-hatting would somehow be necessary.
Roberto Gaetano
At the 16 November teleconference, one issue was raised, that is that if members of an ALS are authorised to become also individual members in their own capacity this will result in ALSes abandoning At-Large. Personally, I do not understand why an ALS should do that, and I do not see an immediate danger. I am urging any member of a certified ALSes to explain if and why his/her organization will ask for having their certification dropped if they become individual members.
David Mackey
I wanted to record my thoughts on the UIM-WP conference call from last week (November 17, 2020) ...
---------------------------------
My first comment is related to Alan’s comments at minute 14:34 …
Alan: “This WP is helping to refine a decision from the first At-Large Review that every RALO should have individual members. (13 or 14 years ago)
My Thoughts: Our working party may resolve this particular issue, but it’s likely that the At-Large Community will continue to debate how ALSs and Individual Members interact in the future. More refinement will likely be required.
---------------------------------
Second Comment is related to Cheryl’s request to clarify the harms at minute 20:57, and Sebastian’s response starting at 22:45.
Sebastian noted two potential harms:
2. “Weaken the position of ALSs within the RALO and therefore the RALO within At-Large” (24:38)
My Question for Sebastian: I’m interested understanding the second harm more and your use of the phrase “weaken the position of ALSs”. Are you able to elaborate on "weaken the position of ALSs"?
The phrase seems to suggest a zero-sum competition between ALSs and individual members. I thought the relationship would be like positive-sum cooperation. Am I missing something?
Gopal Tadepalli
I wish to reiterate that, excepting those who are named in the application for ALS, all others can be a member of ALS and RALO if they desire. In other professional societies, I see a equivalence as Institutional Members who are notified by the Institution at the time of paying the dues. They are deemed to represent the Institution in all matters. Others in the same Institution can be Individual members.
APRALO current ROPs, approved in March 2014.
27.5 Unaffiliated Individual Members
27.5.1 These members are the unaffiliated individuals, including any certified Nomination Committee appointed representatives, to the APRALO who meet the following criteria:
27.5.2 Unaffiliated Individuals must:
27.5.2.1 be subscribed to the APDiscuss list,
27.5.2.2 be a permanent resident of one of the countries/territories in the APRALO region as defined by ICANN,
27.5.2.3 not be a member of a certified ALS.
27.5.2.4 By way of 'certification' of having met this criteria and therefore be able to contribute fully to APRALO an Unaffiliated Individual Member, must submit an affirmation of these criteria to At Large Staff indicating how they meet the required criteria and also note that:
27.5.2.5 Upon ceasing to meet any of the criteria, unaffiliated membership is terminated.
27.5.2.6 All unaffiliated individuals (treated as a group) will be responsible for selecting their representative (when required to from time to time and or to contribute to the Regional General Assembly)
27.5.2.7 This representative must not be employed or contracted by, or have substantive financial interest in, an ICANN contracted registry or accredited registrar.
Gopal T V
Sebastien Bachollet
Why youy need to be member twice?
Sarah Kiden
I agree with Sebastien. If they are already members through their membership in the ALS, why should they apply again? I think this would not be a limitation considering that anyone is always welcome to participate regardless of individual or ALS membership.
Roberto Gaetano
Looking at all the comments and the chat of the teleconferences, I am realising that we are asking the same questions and making the same comments over and over again, so I think that there is not much more that we can add to this topic.
I acknowledge that the majority is in favour of allowing a member of an ALS be also a member of a RALO in his/her own capacity even if some would like to put limitations.
I will ask Staff to close this issue and open a new issue about "Conditions to be met for allowing a member of an ALS be also a member of a RALO in his/her own capacity". In the report, the minority view of not allowing this to happen will be reported, hopefully with some rationale about the reason why.