I agree 100% Jacqueline Carlton Samuels wrote:
This is a very measured response because quite frankly, this entire chapter tends to make this *voluntary* situation seems like work for fee. Secondly, it is offends reason and vex the spirit to think that minutes spent in a meeting is being equated with participation! [Do indulge and give me relief on this notion!]
All in all, I support the general thrust of Alan's views. And if this proposal came to a vote as is, I would *strongly recommend and encourage* LACRALO representatives to ALAC to vote NO.
Carlton
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 02:09 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Draft revised Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements
(Comment also posted to the wiki.)
There is a draft revision of the ALAC Rules of Procedure Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements posted at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?cairo_documents. The draft sets out the expectations of ALAC members and others, and includes remedies for non-performance. I have quite strong feelings about this proposal.
First, those of you who have heard me talk or read my comments about ALAC members who cannot or do not participating effectively know that I fell that this problem must be addressed. However, I feel the documents is totally inappropriate in a number of ways.
If it comes to a vote in anywhere near the current version, I will vote against it.
I could write a lot on this, but I will try to keep this short, and hopefully start a dialogue. Here is gist of my concerns:
- The fact that this is a 10 page document, up from the previous 1 page is a first symptom. We should not need to go into things at that level. The people participating in our group should be sufficiently professional and intelligent that we do not have to do this.
- As with the previous version, it sets specific, quantitative targets for some aspects of performance and demands 100% compliance or be subject to removal. This version is slightly better in that it gives some option for correction. But it is still relies too much on an automata view of process (that is, prescribed such that it could be implemented by a computer without human intervention).
- I object to decision making delegated in such a broad way to the Chair and the Executive Committee (a concept that does not even exist in the rest of the RoP).
I have no problem describing expectations and in fact I strongly advocate it. But writing rules such as these almost sets the expectations that we are going to have a lot of people in violation of them. We should set reasonable expectations, and in the (hopefully rare) cases that people are not meeting them, take effective action.
If we feel that we need such detailed and rigid rules to get effective participation, we are not selecting the right people, and THAT is something that we should be addressing with the highest priority.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1737 - Release Date: 21/10/2008 02:10 PM
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-lists...