New subject: [lac-discuss-en] At-Large Performance Management Proposal

Oct. 29, 2009

      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

Re: [ALAC] At-Large Performance Management Proposal

Carlton Samuels

carlos aguirre

tags

participants (2)