I started out in our ALAC & Regional Leadership Working Session at Seoul giving reasons why I have grave reservations about this performance management process. First, it seems like work. And quite frankly if we're going to make this "like work", then it disturbs the fundamental framework of our engagement; a voluntary group giving what they give because of interest. I know. Some folks think it is the "free" travel that that is honey. I personally find that offensive since a) I work for fee and when I participate it is an opportunity cost, my account b) I've traveled for work almost 2 million air miles to all continents since I have been working and if I never travel for a mile for ICANN-related matters, I would be on an airplane way too often for my loved ones. Then again, I prefer my own bed. If you all interested, I will share my travel itinerary for the past 2 months and the next 2 months! Second, even as it allows that we come to the ICANN agenda with different experiences and different assumptions, the logic of this undermines all of those facts and the reasonable expectations that any thoughtful examination of the implications from assessment would have provided; we will not all be A1 and top of the class, even after we sit the bench for a time. Third, this proposal posits the ALAC, en banc, as the jury, court of originating jurisdiction and the court of appeal. That is offensive to equity, probably immoral and fundamentally unfair. Fourth, this assumes that we all have the same interests, even those who are elected to propel regional interests; this rubbishes the original anticipation for regional representation. I will give an example. There is no compelling regional or Caribbean interest in IDNs. So, quite frankly, it does not do those who represent the region any good with their constituents to be known as the "go-to" guy for IDN matters on ALAC! Take myself, for example. If you troll the lists, you will see very little from me on IDNs. So when that issue was hot and heavy, I could be deemed as non-performing. The way I deal with this issue is to let myself be guided by those with the compelling interest, those that I trust and those that I think have spent the time to educate themselves on the issues and so prepared to speak authoritatively. My light was Hong and now, James. So if ever I am called in a division, I will likely take counsel from them and vote with them. Fifth, RALOs were designed to be independent entities raised to give advice to ICANN thru ALAC, en banc; RALO-appointed members were not intended to "take the whip" of ALAC. So the proposal sounds dangerously like the ALAC seeking to impose its will on the RALO. Let me explain. What if ALAC - at least the majority part of it - decides that some RALO-approved member is a dud and send this message back to the RALO of the offending member. And what if the RALO, having gravely considered the matter, decide there is nothing there and responds, "go fly a kite"? What then? Will the ALAC deny a seat at the table to the member in question? Closer to home, what does ALAC do when an advisory to the Board is not accepted, much less acknowledged? Sixth, the proposal makes a very good case why statistics taken in their purest form is good but hardly sufficient to assess performance. So far, so good. Then it conflates the question of high performance versus low performance and bring back statistics as a definitive indicator of poor performance. The internal inconsistency is writ large, usually meaning a wholesale rejection. I support and applaud the development of JDs. I cannot support *this* performance measurement proposal. It is good enough for members who is underwhelmed by another's performance to send a message. This then becomes a perfect opportunity for intervention by an *aware* Rapporteur. And by the way, mediating non-performing membership was one of the original ideas proffered for the Ex-Com and the PRINCIPAL reason why I supported it then; this was the price I thought manageable to act in any way to limit the deliberative rights of another ALAC member. Finally, an analogy. I have a mango tree in my yard. Son of a gun, some years it gives us a good crop of very sweet mangoes, other years not so good. In the years that it is not at peak performance, I am inclined to cut it back, even to chop it down altogether. But my mother, bless her heart, would have none of it. Because, she says, it provides shade! I'm about good fruit..and she sees shade as equally valuable. Let the matter rest at JDs and declare victory. Kind regards, Carlton On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:25 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
The ALAC has now adopted the Position Description (PD) for ALAC members and Liaisons (http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-PD). Despite satisfaction that it has been approved, I must admit some disappointment at the low voter turnout.
I now submit the following discussion paper on how to ensure that the PD is effective.
The document is based on the principles I presented in Sydney and modified based on the comments received prior to and at that meeting. It has also drawn very significantly from the policy proposed by Carlos Aguirre.
This document will be presented and discussed on Tuesday in Seoul, with the intent of deciding on the principles and to be followed soon thereafter with a formal policy for discussion and approval.
Any comments via e-mail or in person received sufficiently prior to the meeting will be incorporated in the presentation.
A machine-translated version in French and Spanish will be sent soon.
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