New subject: [lac-discuss-en] Draft revised Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements

Oct. 25, 2008


      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...

Re: [ALAC] [lac-discuss-en] Draft revised Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements

Jacqueline A. Morris

carlos aguirre

tags

participants (2)