[ALT-Plus] ALAC vote on the ALS Mobilisation Report

[Maureen Hilyard]

Thank you Seun.

In light of the discussions you have had within AFRALO and with Alan, I am
extending the consultation time until Weds 23.59utc, so that ALAC may
consider your issues and also present some of their own perhaps, for some
final tweaking if agreed by the ALS Mobilisation Working Party

I am sending a message out soon to the ALAC and RALO Chairs to let them
know what the new schedule will be with regards to voting. The vote will
ONLY be in relation to the Report.

We will not be voting on any Bylaw changes until we have had a chat with
Legal to find out what we will be allowed to do and what we won't be able
to touch. We always knew that the upcoming vote would have to exclude the
Bylaws.

So, as your paper is ready to go to the ALAC I will include it into my next
email to them for their consideration before the vote. Thank you and your
team for your participation and your patience throughout this activity, but
I think it will be a good outcome

Regards
Maureen

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 10:39 AM Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Maureen,
>
> We held our meeting today and in order to provide some feedback in time
> for the ALAC call. Kindly find attached our comments. I have also attached
> the pdf version of the report used for numbering. Kindly note that there
> were quite a number of other comments made and we have resolved most of
> them with these few left hence it is my hope that this will be given due
> consideration by ALAC membership.
>
> Regards
> PS: Apologies in advance for any typo in the document as it was prepared
> on the fly.
>
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 3:07 PM Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Maureen,
>>
>> Thank you for your email and we at AFRALO also appreciate the work of the
>> working party and commend them for their work and as you may recall that
>> members of AFRALO also participated within the WP.
>>
>> You may notice from the comments log on the Googledocs document that
>> there were several comments and it's based on engagements that we've not
>> streamlined to a few which may still be further reduced during our members
>> call tomorrow.
>>
>> Your responses to the open comments are very much appreciated and could
>> indeed form some point of clarification during our meeting tomorrow. We
>> shall endeavour to get our feedback to ALAC this week (by or before
>> Wednesday which will be within 48hrs after our call)
>>
>> Regards
>> Sent from my mobile
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2020, 09:31 Maureen Hilyard, <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Seun
>>>
>>> The ALS Mobilisation Working Party has worked diligently over the last
>>> year to produce this report,
>>> and the consensus process resulted in its accepting it as complete and
>>> agreed upon by the majority,
>>> by their last meeting on 21 September. The report has therefore been
>>> available for comment and
>>> several consultations have taken place and the only really substantive
>>> change that has been
>>> requested and agreed upon has been the change of the word "oversee"
>>> which will be dealt with
>>> before the ALAC vote.
>>>
>>> My personal views on some of the comments made in the AFRALO working
>>> document.
>>>
>>> 1. re:  EMMANUEL MFITUMUKIZA Nov 10 - anyone was able to participate in
>>> the working party
>>> both ALS and UIM members to contribute to the discussions during the
>>> whole year.
>>>
>>> 2. re: PETERS OMORAGBON Nov 16 - everyone must remember that:
>>>
>>> a.. the ALS only becomes a member of ICANN and a RALO, following a vote
>>> by the ALAC to accept it
>>> (or not) as well as an agreed acceptance by the ALS to fulfil the
>>> "criteria and standards" which are set
>>> by the Board based on the recommendation of the ALAC in Section 12.2
>>> (d)(ix)(A). The report contains
>>> the WP's recommendations to the ALAC. It is therefore up to the ALAC to
>>> agree or not agree to accept
>>> the WP's report and its recommendations.
>>>
>>> b.. Once the ALS is accepted as a member, then the individual ALS
>>> members work within the RALO
>>> to undertake their organisation's obligations to (a) ensure it keeps
>>> its contact details up to date so that
>>> they can receive and distribute important ICANN information to its
>>> members and (b) encourage its
>>> interested individual members to join At-Large or ICANN activities.
>>>
>>> Actually, this is not unlike the problem that we have in the community
>>> about people not understanding
>>> what the difference is between the ALAC and At-Large. There is often a
>>> problem with the  differentiation
>>> between (a) the purpose of an ALS and (b) the individual ALS members
>>> who participate in At-Large
>>> or ICANN. The ALS and its members have two different purposes within
>>> ICANN.
>>>
>>> While the report starts with an explanation of the role of "individual
>>> ALS members", the rest of the
>>> report is very much focused on the importance of the ALSes within
>>> At-Large, and the "criteria and
>>> standards" that are mentioned in the bylaws. and which the ALAC has a
>>> role in recommending
>>> to the Board.
>>>
>>> 3. re SEUN Nov 13 with regards to the report from the ALS to the ALAC.
>>> Because it is the ALAC who
>>> has formal responsibility for the membership of the ALS and for ensuring
>>> that it meets the expectation
>>> of its accreditation (because the ALAC must also vote on the withdrawal
>>> of accreditation if
>>> recommended by a RALO), the report should be sent to the ALAC as the
>>> primary obligation of the
>>> ALS. However, it would be meaningless for the ALAC to assume that they
>>> would be able to deal with
>>> any local questions or queries that might be raised in the report that
>>> would be more appropriately
>>> dealt with by the RALO, therefore it would undoubtedly also be copied to
>>> the RALO.
>>>
>>> 4. re PETERS regarding "*accreditation does not entitle an ALS to
>>> expect or receive **any funds from *
>>> *ICANN*". This is true. An ALS cannot receive funds (directly) from
>>> ICANN. This can only be done
>>> through the RALO or the ALAC.
>>>
>>> 5. re ABDULKARIM AND SEUN on "*an ALS applicant whose members span
>>> regions*", I do not believe
>>> we will get many applications like this however they can be treated on
>>> a case by case basis. We have
>>> generally looked at the region of the administration personnel and the
>>> majority of the members as our
>>> criteria for RALO assignment. But it also could cover territories where
>>> an ALS may be in a RALO that
>>> is not the one in which it is physically situated yet belongs to
>>> because of its country's political affiliation.
>>>
>>> 6. re SEUN (Nov14) and later comments on page 18 about the word
>>> "oversee" which others also
>>> raised. This is to be dealt with by the ALAC as one of their decisions
>>> to make at the meeting.
>>>
>>> 7. re SEUN (Nov 11) about the rationale for rejection of an application
>>> to be an ALS being at the sole
>>> discretion of the Chair, I cannot believe that there would be a logical
>>> reason why the ALAC or the
>>> staff would not give a rationale for rejection, but that clause may be
>>> there for some extreme reason
>>> that I can't even think of at the moment, and it is probably more
>>> precautionary than trying to not be
>>> transparent.
>>>
>>> 8. re SEUN (Nov 14) p16 - i think this is more to do with the ongoing
>>> enquiries that the staff do (on
>>> behalf of the ALAC) to try to get an ALS accredited or withdrawn from
>>> accreditation based on
>>> information from the RALO. From my experience, the staff work
>>> continually with RALOs on getting
>>> ALSes accredited, and general practice is that staff do most of the legwork
>>> anyway and regularly
>>> inform RALOs of progress.
>>>
>>> 9. re PETERS (Nov 16) p23. I think you are misreading the text "For the
>>> purposes of these Bylaws,
>>> such individual members shall have access to the same communications
>>> facilities as members of
>>> an ALS." Individual (unaffiliated) members are equal in participation
>>> status to those who are
>>> individual ALS members.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> M
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 7:49 PM Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear Maureen, ALAC
>>>>
>>>> It has been brought to my attention that the ALAC intend to vote on the
>>>> report at her meeting tomorrow. Kindly note that AFRALO has been
>>>> deliberating on the report and we actually have a RALO meeting tomorrow to
>>>> finalise on the few open concerns from our members.
>>>>
>>>> The list of open items which we intend to finalise on can be found at
>>>> the Google URL below:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Kr4uH3IGv-LNzsO27twEiTlmRBUUAab5JzgNqGChqwY/edit?usp=drivesdk
>>>>
>>>> Therefore I will like to request that more time is given to RALO to
>>>> consider the report. It will be a futile effort of the RALO if ALAC
>>>> proceeds to take a decision without getting feedback from the RALOs
>>>> especially as I have now informed you that AFRALO intends to provide same.
>>>> I also recall that Sebastian suggested that more time he given and I think
>>>> it will be good for ALAC to put these into consideration.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your understanding and my apology for the delay in getting
>>>> our response to ALAC before the original set deadline.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Chair AFRALO
>>>> Sent from my mobile
>>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>>>
>>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji,Mobile: +2348035233535*
>
> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/alt-plus/attachments/20201123/ebeeed37/attachment-0001.html>