DRAFT Discussion Paper - SEE PDF HERE !

Improving the Effectiveness of RALOs and ALSes in supporting the mission of At-large and ICANN

This paper is not meant to be complete. It is meant to be a start at fully defining what we expect from our community.


RALO Core Responsibilities

 According to the RALO Memoranda of Understanding with ICANN, RALO have (among others), the following responsibilities (wording varies).

• Helping to inform individual Internet users in the North American Region about ICANN news, meetings, policy development activities, and opportunities for ICANN participation;

• Helping to promote outreach activities in the community of individual Internet users in the North American Region to advance understanding of, and participation in, issues addressed by ICANN that affect individual Internet users;

• Offering mechanisms that enable discussions among members of At-Large structures in the Region and with those involved in ICANN decision-making, and encouraging interested individuals to share their views on pending ICANN issues.


 Each ALS has specific responsibilities and must meet certain criteria to facilitate the RALO carrying out its mission.

ALS Responsibilities

  • Report annually on its leadership, membership, major activities and "linkages" with ICANN (ie why they are an ALS). To the extent practical, this reporting process will be streamlined and easy.
  •  Redistribute regular ICANN updates to its members (these updates will be created by staff but might be augmented by the RALO)
  •  Reference ICANN and At-Large prominently on its website, either on its home page, or on a secondary page which is obviously linked to the home page (such as a pointer for group memberships or affiliations).
  •  When specific issues are brought to the attention of ALSes, each ALS should evaluate whether they can contribute or not, and if they can ALS members should be involved.
  •  Respond to specific requests from the RALO as needed.

2. ALS Criteria and Application Process

  • Nothing here is meant to negate the current requirements for an ALS (self-funding, largely individual-led, etc.)
  • Although there is no magic number of participants to make a "legitimate" ALS, it should be significantly larger than just the ALS leadership team.
  • An ALS applicant should explain what the intersection is between their interests and those of ICANN.
  • Other criteria to address "issues" we have had during the ALS application process.

3. Individual Members

      • How do we make them an effective and important part of At-Large, so that an individual who wants to participate does not feel that they have to create an ALS, or have some existing organization join just so they have a vehicle for participation?

Alan Greenberg

16 June 2015

  • No labels


  1. I believe that if we are talking about RALO responsabilities are all RALOS included. On text up ahead says "Helping to inform individual Internet users in the North American Region" must said "(...)inform Internet users of respective region". 

    I imagine those text are taken from NARALO RoPs but it would be a good point to start armonization among RALOS. 


  2. As per  Juan's  comments  as  the  suggestions  for NARALO is  applicable to  all.  I am not sure  on the ROP  for each RALO  but  as  Alan reiterates the  ROP for  NARALO which is  suppose to engage the ALS's and also the ALS's  are responsible to highlight their  ICANN activities on their website etc. 

    The devil is in the details on the frequency, type of  communication, effectiveness of the communication  and monitoring of the  ALS's obligations to publish on their  website, facebook etc their activities with ICANN.   It's the  hope that the   new committee examining ALS  criteria will address these issues



  3. LACRALO had a set of requisites that can be useful too.

     One alternative to start this work is to have all set of Ralos that have already worked on this and see what is similar and the rationale behind it .  the requisites commons to more than one RALO ( preferentially more than 2) could be considered as a good one to be considered. if we do this previous work I believe we can reach consensus more easily. 

    1. Dear Vanda kindly see the following  wiki page ALses Criteria and Expectations  which includes a table prepared by staff with an overview of RALOs existing rules.

      Kind regards,

      Silvia Vivanco