*Dear colleagues,* * * *thank you for your substantial comments and suggestions. At this stage, our discussion has underlined quite a clear separation between function and structure:* * * *1) There is agreement on the need for clearly defined lines of responsibility. As ICANN is pushed into a new phase of transformation, so too must ALAC adapt: it must distinguish its most important duties from its more routine -if traditional- tasks; it must organize its work according to its own priorities, rather than being geared to react to agendas set elsewhere.* * * *2) Although there have been suggestions for some small changes, there is broad agreement on the definition of the lines of responsibility set out in my original e-mail, viz.* *- Community, Outreach, Communication,* *- Policy, Process, Legal,* *- Finance, Administration.* * * *3) There is no consensus on preferred structures. Some suggest that the lines of responsibility be integrated into the Executive Committee; others call for such lines to be led by individuals not necessarily seated on the ExeCom; yet others remark that such a task would provide the ideal level for the involvement of RALOs. Most comments dwell on the fact that the choice of a title (e.g. Vice Chair) is far less important than reliably performing a function (e.g. Community, which requires a stable, identifiable lead). A minority calls for a regional balance in leading the lines of responsibility, but most consider that regional balance is best achieved in other ways in ALAC.* * * *4) There is quite a basic difference of opinion between a minority which considers that the lines of responsibility should be dealt with in Working Groups, and could therefore be populated at the RALO level, and a majority which supports the idea of a more permanent approach. The latter considers that permanence would provide the additional advantage of visibility to both our community and to the wider ICANN.* * * *5) Several comments have called for any further discussion on lines of responsibility to be taken to the Rules of Procedure Working Group (RoP WG). This would indeed be quite normal, but the challenges ALAC and ICANN are now facing, render an ALAC-wide overview a necessity, if only to provide direction and guidance to the RoP WG.* * * *I remain at your disposal.* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques.* * * 2012/7/5 Titi Akinsanmi <titi.akinsanmi@gmail.com>
Between a rock and a hard place (Yes I do like my sayings).
Having read all mails - from JJS to Alan's this morning here are my thoughts.
*Labels, Positions and Structures in Volunteer organizations:* If not properly managed can be quite detrimental moreso in a grouping that is emerging from being viewed as 'unimportant'. That said - there is indeed merit in being able to fashion out specific volunteering streams within ALAC.
*Work Streams vs Labelled Roles creating illusions/realities of superiority and importance: *
I mentioned this more to Olivier as Chair than anyone else - coming in to ALAC as a newbie one of the fuzziest things is identifying where my particular set of skills would best be leveraged alongside the value add strategy I envisioned. Not a function of not knowing what I joined up (I was warned - multiple times :-) for but rather an issue of having an ALAC that is so convoluted: has people going off and doing their own thing atimes to shine other times to truly move ALAC forward; also issue of those with long term association coming with 'baggage' (good bad and ugly) which deters efforts to move issues forward when engaged on and those who genuinely would like to add value.
In essence - my take is create work streams - label them if necessary to add weight to the leadership but please lets manage the plethora of work groups, committees etc etc that fragments our ability to engage as a whole. The ALAC is becoming a bigger maze in the already convoluted maze called ICANN and its WGs, Committees etc.(How many of these do we have currently - those engaged on substantive vs organizational issues?)
*ALAC Evolution:*
Key is if we do end up with a formalized structure I would suggest its along work/program/issue areas with leads appointed by those in that particular grouping or by the entire ALAC membership. Each stream has a set of deliverables/objectives that easily measurable. This hopefully (fingers crossed) would foster increased participation than what currently exists.
Finally in principle - agree to suggestion. Adding on more elected/nominated/positions roles within though - I would caution against.
Morning Thoughts from a close to term TT
Enjoy the day ahead!
TT
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca
wrote:
Somewhere in the thread that follows JJS' message, I think that it was suggested that we should formalize these groupings with our RoP revision. I would strongly suggest that we not do anything of the kind. People's skills and interests vary, and assignments should be made in accordance with these and not cast in concrete ahead of time.
Alan
At 29/06/2012 10:05 AM, JJS wrote:
*ALAC's tasks can be handled under three main lines. Each line would be led by a Vice Chair, and each member would be required to join at least one of the three lines:* *1) Community, Outreach, Communication* *2) Policy, Process, Legal* *3) Finance, administration*
_______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal
ALAC Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Mrs. Titi Akinsanmi
Consultant/Researcher Mobile: +27 83 300 7105 titi.akinsanmi@gmail.com Impacting My Generation _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal
ALAC Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org