Re: [ALAC] Draft revised Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements
I just made the following comment on the wiki. -------------- I was surprised to read this draft. I share most of opinions and sentiments written above. If we adopt this, I would suggest to change the title from "Minimum Participation Requirements" to "Detailed Participation Obligations", which of course is not what we need. I am also concerned about the "tone" of this document. While I do agree and understand that our performance should be measured, both individually and collectively, and improved, we have different ideas and habits for "volunteers" or "work" or how to conduct in the meetings etc. By applying "whips", as this document suggests, or detailed text-book like obligations, may be, to me, quite counter-productive. I also note that there is no mention of kind of "support" ALAC members and Liaisons are expected to receive from Staff or from ICANN. I also think that there is a need, perhaps, to define the Executive Commitee clearly, in the RoP. Finally, I like to see the "functional ALAC", that means, have reasonable division of labor, help each other, work as a team in trust. I hope the "minimum" requirements will lead to produce that. izumi
Dear All. After read this draft I want to express that I fully agree with comment made by Izumi. Best Regards. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:06:12 +0900> From: iza@anr.org> To: carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> CC: lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Draft revised Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements> > I just made the following comment on the wiki.> > --------------> > I was surprised to read this draft. I share most of opinions and> sentiments written above.> If we adopt this, I would suggest to change the title from "Minimum> Participation Requirements" to "Detailed Participation Obligations",> which of course is not what we need.> > I am also concerned about the "tone" of this document. While I do> agree and understand that our performance should be measured, both> individually and collectively, and improved, we have different ideas> and habits for "volunteers" or "work" or how to conduct in the> meetings etc. By applying "whips", as this document suggests, or> detailed text-book like obligations, may be, to me, quite> counter-productive.> > I also note that there is no mention of kind of "support" ALAC members> and Liaisons are expected to receive from Staff or from ICANN.> > I also think that there is a need, perhaps, to define the Executive> Commitee clearly, in the RoP.> > Finally, I like to see the "functional ALAC", that means, have> reasonable division of labor, help each other, work as a team in> trust. I hope the "minimum" requirements will lead to produce that.> > izumi> > _______________________________________________> 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 _________________________________________________________________ Descargá GRATIS el poder del nuevo Internet Explorer 7. http://optimized.msn.com/Default.aspx?mkt=es-ar
participants (2)
-
carlos aguirre -
Izumi AIZU