At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
Policy Comments & Advice
At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments
At-Large FY25 Strategic Priority Activities
Up to now, what I have heard is mainly the objection to the fact that a member of the leadership of an ALS be also a RALO Individual Member.However, in the latest teleconference (Monday 30 November) and following emails in relation to voting a question has been raised about allowing such individual to have a vote as RALO Individual Member while a the same time she/he might have another avenue to vote via the internal process of the ALS.
Notwithstanding the fact that we do not know what are the internal procedures of an ALS - and therefore whether the assumption that a member of the ALS has any right to vote therefore influencing the vote of the ALS is correct - this is a valid question.
Regardless the operational details, my understanding is that the concern is about taking the risk of giving (undue) additional power to individuals by means of their “double” affiliation, as member of an ALS and as RALO Individual Member.
I believe that this is a concern that we must address, even if, as Alan Greenberg has pointed out many times, we do not have any control on individuals who are members of multiple ALSes and are therefore potentially able to multiply their voting weight.
What do you think?
Unless I am mistaken, the only open issue is about voting.
Looking at the result of the poll - see https://doodle.com/poll/5u3bvvn7f4fzp5ef - it looks that there is consensus about giving a vote, even if in aggregate - to RALO Individual Members, while there are different opinions about the voting weight.Looking at the geographical distribution of the replies to the poll, I wonder whether our recommendation should be to give a vote to RALO Individual Members, but leave to the different RALOs the definition of the voting mechanism.
Another issue that came up was whether this voting right must be limited to individuals who are not members of any ALS, because they might - although it is not necessarily the case - be able to exert a voting right in their ALS[es].Also in this case, the question is whether this should be left to each RALO to decide.
So, I would limit the discussion today to:
possibly also concentrating on whether we believe that we must enforce one global solution or whether this can be left for RALOs to decide, limiting the recommendation to the general principles.
Let me summarise the state of the art for this topic, before I draft some text for the report.
We have rough consensus that a member of an ALS can also be a RALO Individual Member in his/her own capacity. The issue “Reasons for not allowing a member of an ALS to be also a member of a RALO in his/her own capacity”, currently void, contains the objections by the minority that should be included in the report. It is clear that, if no objection is logged, nothing will be reported.
What we still need to clarify, is whether there are any conditions that we want to apply to limit the ability of a member of an ALS to be also a RALO Individual Member. The comments that I recall are about ALS Leaders and about the voting power - specifically, these are the questions:
Let me point out that both these questions have subtle implications.
For the first one, it assumes that we have a clear litmus test to determine that an ALS Member is part of the ALS Leadership (except for the official representative of the ALS itself) and that we are notified about any change in the Leadership Team of each ALS. My personal experience is that this is not necessarily the case, rendering a rule on this topic by and large unenforceable - except, of course, for the individual(s) officially qualified as representative(s) of the ALS, because in this case the ALS has the obligation to indicate them. So I will launch a poll - whose formulation I still need to think about - to test the opinion of the participants and add this topic to the discussion at the next teleconference.
For the second one, this is on one hand linked to the wider voting issue and also to the assumption, that is not necessarily true, that ALS Members have a right to vote within the ALS for topics that are relevant for the ICANN business - otherwise said, whether they can influence the position of the ALS on ICANN business. I will launch a poll also on this open issue.
Last but not least, we have a related issue that is the voting weight that the RALO Individual Members have, in aggregate, within their RALO. The problems with this is that the voting systems vary across the RALOs and therefore it will be extremely difficult to establish a rule that is valid for all. My impression during the latest teleconference was that we could settle on the principle that the RALO Individual Members have, in aggregate, a vote, leaving to each RALO the flexibility to adopt this rule according to their voting procedures. Please let me know if there is any objection to this formulation in the report.
As usual, this text is copied on the wiki.
This is going to be the first item on the agenda next Monday.Let me start by acknowledging the messages from some of you who said that they did not see the reason for allowing this participation. I hear you, but the question was, in presence of a majority of positions who are in favour of allowing it, whether there was any harm. The rationale is that one thing is to say: “It is harmful” and another is to say: “It is useless”. While the former requires further discussion, the latter does not, at least in my opinion.So, if you are opposing this double participation, please continue commenting on the wiki under the issue “Reasons for not allowing a member of an ALS to be also a member of a RALO in his/her own capacity"
As per my previous messages, there are a few pending issues, for which we have ongoing polls. May I as those who have not provided their choices to add them so that we can have the best possible picture before the call. The polls are:
Another ongoing poll is related to the voting weight of the RALO Individual Members, in aggregate. The question was whether we should leave to the RALOs the decision on whether the aggregate voting weight is one or an amount to be determined by an algorithm. Let me point out that, since at least one RALO does not give an equal voting weight to all ALSes in the region, the algorithm might be seriously complicated, but not understandable by other RALOs who use a standard voting weight of one vote for each ALS. The poll is:
Have a nice weekend.Roberto
I am trying to summarise the discussion so far.
The questions on the table during the last teleconference - on which we had a poll - were:
During the call an issue was raised about “leadership” and it was observed that the leadership of an ALS can be uncorrelated with the engagement with ICANN issues, because the ALS might well do something else for a living.
All what we have as a reference is the “ALS Representative”. Looking at the ALS-Mob WP Report, I see that the ALS must “[d]esignate between two and four representatives, one of which will be designated as prime”.
Looking at the result of the polls, we had two separate statements:
I assume that while the first one is clear, according to the discussion during the call the second one should mean "None of the ALS Representatives can be RALO Individual Member"
I would like to have a quick ratification during the next call that this is a correct interpretation of the discussion, so that we can close the issue.
Another poll was about whether an ALS Leader has the right to vote as RALO Individual Member. Besides that “ALS Leader” must be replaced by “ALS Representative”, this point is now moot, because we have consensus that an ALS Representative cannot even be a RALO Individual Member.
I believe that now we have a complete picture that can be consolidated in the report - unless there are objections.