Before getting too much involved in this discussion, I would like to remind the picket fence within we must operate.
Whether we like it or not, the partition of the ICANN Community in five Regions is a fundamental cornerstone of the ICANN building.
The question is, therefore, not whether belonging to one or another RALO is irrelevant, but to define whether, for a very limited number of cases, and under strict rules, we can allow some exceptions.
Something that we might consider as an option is what has been adopted for EURALO Individual Users after months of discussions, prompted by the special situation of countries who are part of some European Institutions, like the Council of Europe, but are not included in the ICANN Region of Europe: individuals from outside Europe - and specifically from the South Caucasus - are accepted as “observers”, without voting power and without the privilege of being elected to leadership position.
This said, since some RALOs have an explicit mention of the limitation to accept individuals from outside the region, I wonder whether the best solution would be to leave to each RALO the latitude to adopt different rules, provided that they do not violate the general principles.
In case there is an evidence based "Conflict of Interest" that arises, an individual member needs a resolution within the home RALO. They can participate in other RALO's without detriment to the policy guidelines of the Home RALO. What is that mode of functioning is best decided by the other RALOs. In principle, one Individual is with one Home RALO. The roles in other RALOs such as Observer are left to the other RALOs.
We never really discussed this point and I am not even sure that we should.
The clear picket fence is provided by the ICANN approach, that provides a partition of the world in well-defined ICANN regions, and there is no way that we will be allowed to make exception to this rule.
However, reality is more complicated than that. While location is well-defined for organisations, that have an “official” seat, for individuals ICANN allows for the “belonging” concept both residency and citizenship - and these can well be in different ICANN Regions for an individual. We had cases even on the ICANN Board - Chris Disspain, to make an example, had to chose between EU (citizenship) and AP (residency). The question is not to avoid double participation, but double voting.
My personal opinion is that we should explicitly exclude this “double membership” in the criteria - and I take full responsibility for raising this point so late in the game. About allowing “participation” (without voting power) in a different RALO, I personally believe that we should allow it, leaving the practical implementation to individual RALOs.
I propose to close this issue and include the principle of avoiding double presence in the criteria.
3 コメント
Roberto Gaetano
Dear all,
Before getting too much involved in this discussion, I would like to remind the picket fence within we must operate.
Whether we like it or not, the partition of the ICANN Community in five Regions is a fundamental cornerstone of the ICANN building.
The question is, therefore, not whether belonging to one or another RALO is irrelevant, but to define whether, for a very limited number of cases, and under strict rules, we can allow some exceptions.
Something that we might consider as an option is what has been adopted for EURALO Individual Users after months of discussions, prompted by the special situation of countries who are part of some European Institutions, like the Council of Europe, but are not included in the ICANN Region of Europe: individuals from outside Europe - and specifically from the South Caucasus - are accepted as “observers”, without voting power and without the privilege of being elected to leadership position.
This said, since some RALOs have an explicit mention of the limitation to accept individuals from outside the region, I wonder whether the best solution would be to leave to each RALO the latitude to adopt different rules, provided that they do not violate the general principles.
Cheers,
Roberto
Gopal Tadepalli
In case there is an evidence based "Conflict of Interest" that arises, an individual member needs a resolution within the home RALO. They can participate in other RALO's without detriment to the policy guidelines of the Home RALO. What is that mode of functioning is best decided by the other RALOs. In principle, one Individual is with one Home RALO. The roles in other RALOs such as Observer are left to the other RALOs.
Gopal T V
Roberto Gaetano
Dear all,
We never really discussed this point and I am not even sure that we should.
The clear picket fence is provided by the ICANN approach, that provides a partition of the world in well-defined ICANN regions, and there is no way that we will be allowed to make exception to this rule.
However, reality is more complicated than that. While location is well-defined for organisations, that have an “official” seat, for individuals ICANN allows for the “belonging” concept both residency and citizenship - and these can well be in different ICANN Regions for an individual. We had cases even on the ICANN Board - Chris Disspain, to make an example, had to chose between EU (citizenship) and AP (residency). The question is not to avoid double participation, but double voting.
My personal opinion is that we should explicitly exclude this “double membership” in the criteria - and I take full responsibility for raising this point so late in the game. About allowing “participation” (without voting power) in a different RALO, I personally believe that we should allow it, leaving the practical implementation to individual RALOs.
I propose to close this issue and include the principle of avoiding double presence in the criteria.
Cheers,
Roberto