[IRP] Proposal for IRP to register as an At Large Structure

Wolf Ludwig wolf.ludwig
Mon Oct 18 03:07:39 EEST 2010

Dear Anja and all,

sorry for my late reply but I was travelling a lot over the last two weeks.

I find your arguments substantial and convincing, Anja, and may be 
it's the best solution (for the time being), to "work more closely with 
IRP DC members who are already a member of EURALO, or any of the 
other regional groupings", as you said. Olivier and I besides others 
who are already engaged in ICANN will try our best to push the IRP 
Charter and concerns on the At-Large agenda.


Anja Kovacs wrote Wed, 06 Oct 2010 18:52:
>Dear all,
>It is a great idea to, in due time, push the charter on the ICANN agenda
>as elsewhere. However, seeing that the IRP DC is a global coalition, I
>would be uncomfortable if we would decide to do so by formally
>associating with a structure within the ICANN system that is explicitly
>a representation of European organisations.
>Also, I don't think it is particularly fruitful at the moment to
>constitute "regional" chapters of our global coalition, in case that
>would be another option.  One of the things I have valued the most in
>this group is the continuous cross-regional collaboration, as it has
>fostered greater understanding of each other's perspectives and reduced
>existing fragmentation. I would not like to let go of this way of
>working at the moment.
>Why not instead work more closely with IRP DC members who are already a
>member of EURALO, or any of the other regional groupings? In that way,
>we would also be able to advocate the Charter from more than one
>position. Olivier, Wolf and others who are already engaged in ICANN, do
>you think this could make sense?
>Of course, this would depend on the willingness and availability of
>those already involved in these processes, but seeing the kind of
>attention the Charter already attracted during the IGF, I am hopeful
>that we can convince a sufficiently large number of people of its
>importance, without joining ALAC as a member ourselves.
>Thanks and best,
>On Wednesday 06 October 2010 05:11 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> I think condition [3] is the most relevant, and should be discussed with
>> ALAC. I wonder if organizations of individuals which also allow for
>> membership of other organizations are not allowed.
>> I am not sure about condition [1] -- I am not sure if one needs to
>> present formal documents of incorporation in some country, but I think
>> at least the regional structures are not formally constituted in this
>> way. Maybe there is an organization formally constituted in some country
>> which takes on formal responsibility to operate as an office or
>> something like it for the regional structure?
>> Anyway, check with ALAC.
>> frt rgds
>> --c.a.
>> On 10/05/2010 06:46 PM, Henrik Almstr?m APC wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>> I think Meryem's points are good and that the process of becoming a
>>> member
>>> as well as the process of deciding if membership is the right thing might
>>> steal momentum from the process of the charter. And pushing the charter
>>> higher on the ALAC agenda would certainly be easier when the charter is
>>> closer to a final version.
>>> /Henrik
>>> 2010/10/5 Meryem Marzouki<meryem at marzouki.info>
>>>> Hi Lisa, Wolf, Olivier and all,
>>>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that there are at least
>>>> three
>>>> conditions to join ALAC that are not met by the IRP coalition:
>>>> 1- Be an organization, and as far as I understand a registered one,
>>>> while
>>>> IRP is a loose (not registered) group
>>>> 2- Be a national or regional organization, since ALAC is structured into
>>>> geographic regional structures, e.g. Wolf is proposing to join
>>>> EURALO, which
>>>> is the European regional structure (made up of regional organizations
>>>> having
>>>> joined ALAC), while IRP is a global coalition
>>>> 3- Be individual user organizations, while IRP is not only a
>>>> multistakeholder coalition, but also a coalition made up of both
>>>> individuals
>>>> and various organizations (NGOs, academic institutions, IGOs,
>>>> businesses,
>>>> governments)
>>>> See: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/en/framework.htm for the criteria and
>>>> their explanation.
>>>> These arguments are only with regards to formal membership criteria.
>>>> Most importantly, even if the IRP coalition eventually meets the
>>>> "administrative" membership criteria, we need to collectively discuss
>>>> from a
>>>> substantive point of you whether it is desirable for it to join ALAC.
>>>> The first issue I see is that we don't have the human resources to do
>>>> this
>>>> in an effective manner: we already have an important project (the
>>>> charter)
>>>> which is mobilizing the few resources that we can devote to the IRP
>>>> work,
>>>> given that all of us are volunteering on this. Are we really able to, in
>>>> addition, substantively participate to ALAC work?
>>>> The second issue, which is related, is: do we want to concentrate on
>>>> - or
>>>> at least dedicate part of our work to - a single, though important,
>>>> aspect
>>>> of Internet governance, namely the domain name system and some other
>>>> critical Internet resources, while the very raison d'etre of the
>>>> coalition,
>>>> namely human rights in the digital environment in a very broad sense
>>>> (including the DNS and CIR as part of this environment constitution:
>>>> remember our discussions on "layers") is far broader?
>>>> The third issue, which is more of a political discussion, is: do we
>>>> think
>>>> that we should be part of the ALAC and other structures of the ICANN
>>>> system,
>>>> thus backing - without any discussion - this system?
>>>> These are my thoughts on this proposal. The different issues are exposed
>>>> above in increasing order of both importance and  risk for the
>>>> coalition to
>>>> literally sink in an ICANN-dominated discussion. While it is
>>>> certainly more
>>>> stimulating to discuss the third substantive issue, I would prefer
>>>> that one
>>>> of the three administrative issues provides us with the answer, so
>>>> that the
>>>> coalition may continue to dedicate its resources to our main collective
>>>> project, that is, the Charter.
>>>> Obviously, since we have active members of the IRP who are also part
>>>> of the
>>>> ALAC members, it would certainly be fruitful that they serve as
>>>> cross-fertilizers of both groups: our work on the Charter might be
>>>> used by
>>>> the ALAC group working on the "Registrant Bill of Rights / Registrar
>>>> Best
>>>> Practices" project, and conversely this ALAC group might be really
>>>> helpful
>>>> by bringing inputs to the Charter provisions concerning DNS/CIR.
>>>> Best,
>>>> Meryem
>>>> Le 4 oct. 10 ? 12:57, Lisa Horner a ?crit :
>>>>   Dear all
>>>>> Please see below a note from Wolf Ludwig, suggesting that the IRP join
>>>>> ALAC-EURALO.  Olivier and Rafik have also been looking at how we can
>>>>> best
>>>>> coordinate with ICANN and its networks (ALAC and NCSG).
>>>>> Thanks Wolf for this invitation and for your support.
>>>>> What do people think about this proposal?
>>>>> Olivier - please could you send through the note you drafted before
>>>>> which
>>>>> gives a bit more background about ALAC.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Lisa
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Wolf Ludwig [mailto:wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net]
>>>>> Sent: 22 September 2010 15:05
>>>>> To: parminder; Lisa Horner; Meryem Marzouki
>>>>> Cc: b at nwagner.org; Wolfgang Benedek; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
>>>>> Subject: Re: [IRP] IRP IGF notes
>>>>> Dear Parminder, Lisa and all,
>>>>> as discussed in Vilnius with Lisa, Wolfgang, Ben and others, we were
>>>>> not active to add much input to the IRP Charter discussion and process
>>>>> but we can help to promote its impact.
>>>>> It was Max Senges, Vittorio Bertola and others who organised a WG on
>>>>> IRP at the 1st ICANN Internet User Summit in Mexico in March 2009. In
>>>>> the final declaration of this Summit At-Large at ICANN announced - as
>>>>> a commitment! - that we will follow-up this discussion in related fora
>>>>> (like IGF etc.) and we nominated two people for it. In the time between
>>>>> not so much happened ...
>>>>> The excellent draft what was submitted at the recent IGF offers a good
>>>>> opportunity to re-start the discussion at the ALAC-ICANN level. One
>>>>> option to foster this discussion among ICANN user representatives could
>>>>> be if the dynamic coalition would join ALAC - EURALO as an At-Large
>>>>> Structure (ALS). Such a membership brings EURALO in a position to push
>>>>> the IRP Charter on the ALAC agenda again. Other scenarios can be
>>>>> discussed as well ... It's just to reconfirm that we will try our
>>>>> best to
>>>>> support the further IRP process.
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> Wolf
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> IRP mailing list
>>>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> IRP mailing list
>>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> IRP mailing list
>>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>Dr. Anja Kovacs
>Centre for Internet and Society
>No. 194, 2nd 'C' Cross
>Domlur 2nd Stage
>Bangalore 560071, India
>T: +91-(0)80-25350955 | F: +91-(0)80-41148130
>M: +91-9611747212 | W: www.cis-india.org
>IRP mailing list
>IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org

phone +41 79 204 83 87
Skype: Wolf-Ludwig

Digitale Allmend
http://blog.allmend.ch -

EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation

More information about the IRP mailing list