• No labels


  1. Dear all,

    Let me remind you that an issue is open under the title "Reasons for not allowing a member of an ALS to be also a member of a RALO in his/her own capacity”.

    This page is meant for people who have objections or concerns about the fact that a member of an ALS is also a RALO Individual Member. The items collected here will be used for the minority report.

    I am copying this email to the issue page for the record.


  2. I am responding to Roberto's email:

    On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 01:52, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

    Dear all,

    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.

    This is a concern which I would ask to be included in the report. It doesn't come to an objection, just a concern, if it requires a categorical description of any kind.

    After considering viewpoints from other members of the WP on this issue, I still fail to see a mutual exclusivity between ALS membership and Unaffiliated Individual membership as a problem requiring fixing at all. In other words, I do not think there is a need for allowing a member of an ALS to be also a member of a RALO in his/her own capacity.

    With the sole exception of voting - and even then voting within At-Large is typically ONLY associated with RALO elections - there is no barrier to participation in At-Large (even if you are neither an ALS Member nor an UI-member) and there is no barrier to participation in RALOs save for what's in the ICANN Bylaws on geographic designation based on residency.

    Everyone who participates in the At-Large are contributing inputs on their own behalf unless they state otherwise. Therefore I don't see why anyone who is already an ALS member requires an (additional) "Individual Member" status to contribute inputs. If an ALS has rules which prevent its non-leadership members (or those who aren't the ALS' formal representatives) from contributing their own input, and if that's something the ALS' members disagree with then it's up to those ALS members to change the rules for that ALS. It isn't up to us as At-Large to intercede in the affairs of an ALS.

    Therefore, I see no reason to eliminate the straight-forward demarcation and mutual exclusivity between ALS membership and Unaffiliated Individual membership. I am concerned that this elimination will unnecessarily complicate the membership structure that we have at present. I also have a remote concern that this elimination could lead to disturbances within ALS member (organizations) and/or a diminishing in importance of ALSes which could be interpreted as implicitly agreeing with the recommendation by the At-Large Review consultant to do away with ALSes when that was explicitly rejected by the ALAC through the At-Large Review Implementation Plan.


    1. I competely agree with Justine's reasoning. I don't know what is the problem we're trying to solve by creating a logic-defying category of affiliated unaffiliated members. Nothing should prevent any ALS member anywhere from participating in any RALO work in an individual capacity as much as she/he likes.

  3. Any record of a dissenting position has to include the question of whether RALO individual members and ALSs are in locked into a zero-sum game forever, or whether there is an alternative opportunity which gives the possibility of creating a positive sum game within At-Large to enhance cooperation within the community to jointly work towards our mandate to represent end users.

    Humans are complex. Each of us have multiple identities which should be leveraged by At-Large for mobilization rather than being boxed into simplified organizational structures for the sake of convenience of thought.  

    1. I simply don't think the leveraging we seek from ALS members requires a grant of of an additional "Individual Member" badge.

      1. I'm not arguing against any individual opinion. It's necessary for each of us to voice our opinions in the hope that the discussion moves our common understanding forward. Hence, a report with a dissenting opinion may be necessary, as long as the opinion remains inside the original scope of the working party. 

        My hope is that we leave a record which evaluates our individual opinions against the mandate of At-Large. Opinions are fine, but opinions which are connected towards the goals of the community are better. It's important for the record to articulate how opinions expressed in this working party relate to questions of future relationships within At-Large. 

        Our working party is only dealing with issues found at one point fixed point in time. Our work will not be the final chapter in the At-Large story. More work will be required in the future to develop better cooperation between RALO individual members and ALSs to work towards our common mandate. The record should reflect the future opportunity of cooperation ... in my opinion. (smile)

        1. Let's just say I don't agree with some of your language and we'll leave it at that. I'm pretty sure Roberto will cover what you had in mind, and I'm under no illusions that mine is a minority opinion. Cheers.

  4. I have the following vision of "why we have a reasons for not allowing a member of an ALS to be also a member of a RALO in his/her own capacity":

    A member of ALS is already a member of RALO and At-Large and acts as individual, as ALS member, representative of the region and in the interests of end users.

    Any member of any ALS can participate in the RALO/At-large work and be part of mailing list.

    We shouldn`t encourage ALS to break the channel of information delivery to ALS members. If there are such problems, they should be solvable within each RALO.

    An active member of the ALS are taking part in the RALO work and increases the role and position of ALS within RALO and At-Large. It helps to mobilize ALSes and doesn`t allow us to lose the relationship with the structure. (It would be great if each ALS may have at least 1 activist (this is not the case now).

    And finally: each case when a member of the ALS is not able to reach out the RALO/work in RALO/At-Large, WGs etc is a signal of sharp problem of the implementation of the Bylaws or operational rules in RALO and requires the finding solution. 

  5. Independence of judgment is very likely to be blurred if an individual notified to RALO with an office in an ALS seeks Individual Member Status also. In a policy we cannot possibly include potential for "Collective Bargaining" or "Groupism with obscure accountability".

    Gopal T V

  6. Dear all,

    The reason for opening this issue was to provide a repository for the minority views opposing the possibility for a member of an ALS to become also a RALO Individual Member.

    Let me remind the current majority view: we recommend to allow an ALS Member to be a RALO Individual Member except for the ALS Representative and Leaders.

    I have seen two concerns to this, that we should report as minority views:

    • participation as RALO Individual Members could undermine the importance of ALSes and ultimately discourage organisations to apply for ALS certification;
    • there is no need for ALS Members to apply to become RALO Individual Members.

    I would like to close this issue and add these concerns in the report - more concerns can be posted directly in the document.