At-Large Framework for non-Quorate ALSes Workspace

n/a

n/a

n/a

• 21.1 Delegates are expected to actively participate in all aspects of the Committee's work. This includes some qualitative commitments and quantitative requirements. 
• 21.2 The qualitative commitments are: 
• 21.3 Reading and commenting in the ALAC online forums; 
• 21.4 Following the ALS certification process and, if members, voting in accreditation votes; 
• 21.5 Participating in ALAC conference calls; 
• 21.6 Attending physical ALAC meetings (and/or, for liaisons, meetings of the bodies to which the person is liaison) at ICANN meetings; 
• 21.7 Providing feedback on any ICANN vs.  At-Large CommunityAt-Large CommunityAtLarge Community matters/issues whenever asked to/needed;
• 21.8 Serving as a liaison to the public. 
• 21.9 The quantitative requirements are: 
  • If members, casting a vote (including abstention) in at least 3/4 of ALS accreditation votes; AND** Participating in at least 2/3 of the ALAC conference calls in any 6 month period; AND
  • Attending at least one physical ICANN meeting in any 9 month period; AND
  • Completing at least one feedback survey on  At-Large CommunityAt-Large CommunityAt-Large Community issues/matters in any 6 months period. The participation requirements set forth in this section shall be considered met if and only if the quantitative requirements stated in Rule 21.3 are met. 
• 21.10 For ordinary ALAC members, in case of failure to meet the requirements, the Chair will privately encourage the member to resign. If this does not happen by 14 (fourteen) days from that communication, the Chair will formally notify the entity responsible for appointing the member, and a message MAY be copied to the public ALAC list, and ask that the appointment is immediately reconsidered.
  

African Regional At Large Organisation (AFRALO)

Participation of ALSes 

1. Set criteria of involvement and participation: 
   1. Attend RALO conference calls and any other virtual meeting
   2. Contribute to the RALO discussions and/or to the ICANN policy development through mailing lists or wiki pages, 
   3. Vote in 3 consecutive elections of RALO officers or representatives within and on various ICANN constituencies
2. Thresholds: 
   1. Active: 
      1. At least one call each 3 months 
      2. At least one contribution to the RALO and ICANN discussion each 3 month 
      3. Vote in 3 consecutive elections 
   2. Not active: 
      1. At least one call each 6 months 
      2. At least one contribution to the RALO and ICANN discussion each 6 month 
      3. Vote in 1 over 3 consecutive elections 
3. Treatment: 
   1. Inactive ALSes are contacted by the chair and secretariat notifying them, based on the statistics, they are not seen to be involved or participating in the RALO and ICANN related activities.. Such ALSes have an opportunity to respond to say how they are involved and active. Based on the response given, the ALS can either be returned to Active status or remain in the inactive one. 
      1. If there is no improvement from the inactive ALSes after a period of 6 months, then they will be considered as in standby status.
   2. ALSes in standby status:
      1. Lose their voting rights
      2. Are removed from the quorum needed for voting on motions and elections 
      3. Their representatives cannot be elected as representatives in or from the RALO
      4. Should be notified of the status change and may regain their voting rights and active status if within the next 12 months they votes or participates to online discussions, otherwise the Chair will submit to ALAC a request for decertification of those ALSes

AFRALO Organizing Instruments

Asian, Australasian and Pacific Islands Regional At-Large Organization (APRALO)

To date, no draft text exists.

APRALO Organizing Instruments

European Regional At-Large Organization (EURALO)

EURALO suggestion for a RALO/ALAC coordinated procedure how to deal with inactive certified members 

As repeatedly discussed at ALAC and Secretariat meetings at the ICANN conferences in Brussels, Cartagena (2010) and San Francisco (2011) and on the basis of the last ALAC survey, long-term inactive RALO members are considered as a problem and there is presently no manubrium for this in-reach dilemma. 

At EURALO, out of 27 certified members (status May 2011) we have three members who didn’t participate at all over a long period of time. Two members never responded any  more after having been certified in 2007 = four years. One member didn’t participate after our 1st GA in June 2008 and has not responded any more since two years. And it makes no sense increasing our membership while having several “dead ducks” among them. There needs to be a minimal standard for involvement and participation at RALO issues (over a period of the last two years – NARALO Bylaw prescribe one year). 

EURALO – assisted by At-Large Staff – repeatedly tried to get in contact with these inactive members, without any results so far and prospects for improvements. As a consequence, the EURALO leadership is presently discussing the following approach to deal with this problem and to find a solution – in a worst case the de-certification of such members. This must be handled carefully and in a step-by-step manner: 

1. Friendly reminder to the focal/contact point in the ALS (if known); 
2. Second (less friendly) reminder with invitation for a reconsideration of the RALO membership; 
3. Last and ultimate call to respond (within 8 to 12 weeks) to the previous reminders, otherwise a suggestion for de-certification will be submitted to ALAC; 
4. (If there is still no response) Suggestion for de-certification will be submitted to ALAC; 
5. Consideration and de-certification decision by ALAC; 
6. Communication about de-certification to the member, incl. last chance for demanding recourse at ALAC (within 4 weeks). 
7. After this procedure the ALS will be finally de-certified and delisted.  
   Such a procedure offers enough chances to a member for reconsideration of its RALO member status with fair rights to reply. 
   
   On the other hand it improves the credibility of RALOs that their documented membership is valid and shows a minimum of participation and commitment. This credibility also affects our reputation towards and among other ICANN constituencies.  
   

EURALO Organizing Instruments

Latin American and Caribbean Islands Regional At-Large Organization (LACRALO)

The following is a summary on the ideas/concepts developed since late February 2011 on dealing with inactive ALSes in LACRALO

For a background of this issue before February 2011, see Appendix A below.

The concept is akin to a traffic light indicating the ALS status as it relates to their involvement or participation in LACRALO : green light, yellow light, red light. 

An ALS that is active in LACRALO has a green light status.

LACRALO will use various criteria to measure an ALS’s involvement in various LACRALO activities over a period of time (for example every 6 or 12 months)

Examples of possible criteria:
*Attendance on LACRALO conference calls
*Emails posted to the LACRALO mailing list
*Attendance on LACRALO virtual General Assemblies typically used to elect LACRALO representatives within and on various ICANN Supporting Organisations

These statistics are analysed.

ALSs that do not match or exceed a certain level of such criteria will be given a yellow status.

Such ALSs are contacted by the chair and secretariat notifying them on based on the statistics, they are not seen to be involved or participating in LACRALO and ICANN related activities and as such, have been given a yellow status. Such ALSes have an opportunity to respond to say how they are involved in LACRALO. Based on the response given, the ALS can either be returned to green status or that the ALS status should remain yellow.

If there is no improvement from such ALSes that have a yellow status after a period of time, then such ALSes status is changed from yellow to red. 

ALSs that have given a red status are
*Removed from the quorum needed for voting on motions and elections and
*ALS representatives cannot be elected as representatives in or from LACRALO

Some of the questions/issues for LACRALO to consider:
What can we measure to determine an ALS is active or inactive?
While the words “participation in LACRALO activities” is used as a quality that we want all ALSs to have, the definition of what is meaningful participation and the evaluation of the quality of that participation is difficult to quantify. The example criteria mentioned earlier measures an ALS involvement in activities, which may be easier to quantify.

What would be the minimum number of what we can measure to determine an ALS is active or inactive?
*Attending a certain number of conference calls a year?
*Not voting in 2 consecutive elections?
*Perhaps a point system could be used (e.g 1 point for attending a meeting, etc)
*Perhaps complete absence of any involvement?

How can an ALS in red status ever return to green status?
What is the threshold of activities that an inactive ALS with a red status can do in order to return to green (and active) status?

LACRALO Organizing Instruments

North-American Regional At-Large Organization (NARALO)

Operating Principles
16. When an ALS does not vote in 3 consecutive NARALO elections or does not contribute a comment on ICANN policy through collaboration on the NARALO discussion list in 12 consecutive months, it automatically loses its voting rights and active status within the NARALO. The ALS may regain its voting rights and active status if within the next year it votes or participates to online discussions, otherwise the Chair will submit to ALAC a request for de-certification of that ALS.

NARALO Organizing Instruments