Re: [ALAC] Draft Agenda for ALAC ExCom meeting of 15th July
Two comments: At 14/07/2009 07:49 PM, carlos aguirre wrote:
Another Question: Why EX Comm is currently formed by Nom Comm appointees, and no by RALO representatives?, Nom Comm appointees are better user representatives than RALO representatives? I don`t think so.
First, my understanding is that both Cheryl and Sébastien are elected by their RALOs and are not NomCom appointees. Second, all four officers positions were filled by candidates who were not opposed - two from RALOs, two from NomCom. And if they had been opposed, whoever was elected would have been selected by the majority of voters, as democracy dictates. NomCom appointees are not de facto better user representatives than RALO representatives, but perhaps not de facto worse either. At 14/07/2009 08:19 PM, Andres Piazza wrote:
About the last part, I don´t think that anyone could disagree with, for example, ALAN´s words. But this is not an easy matter to raise. Firstly, because some of the analysis are made in quantity matters, but not with a complete vision. I share many of the comments but be carefull, who is who to be jugdamental to the performance of other ALAC Members?
Specially RALO Leaders! Are we in a position to say something so strongly about ALAC Members from our region? The whole RALO elected them, not just ourselves. And also, they or some other person could also come with some criticism with the role of one of us, RALO leaders. And they could use many different criteria to analyze that (for example: "What are RALO Leaders from that region that hardly can encourage 1 or 2 ALS rep to be involved in remote participation during the meeting?. I put this example because FOR ME, in LACRALO, a lot of work is done in private emails, chats, calls, with members from the region to encourage, answer doubts, and etc etc, more that to be in some particular WG providing what is just my personal opinion). I could continue the whole night providing examples, but is not the sense.
I´m not saying that this "performance discussion" shouldn´t be raised, but just to be careful and not to put this as an argument against other idea that has been displayed.
I guess we may have a different vision here. In my mind, RALO leaders are elected by their ALSs to take responsibility for their RALO. That is what leadership is all about. I agree that this is potentially a very difficult job. It is not easy to formally assess performance in cases such as this, and particularly when the person being assessed is a colleague. But that is the job that RALO leaders have been given, and they must use all of their skills to try to understand how effective their ALAC representatives are. And they will no doubt have to talk to other ALAC members to try to make this assessment. It is important (in my mind) to differentiate between someone who is working effectively within the RALO, and someone who is working well within the ALAC. You can have one without the other (in both directions). So should we be careful in both setting up the rules and then carrying them out? Most certainly! But ignoring the responsibility should not be one of the options. Alan
Dear Alan: Related to the second comment, I don´t have a different vision than yours in this. Regards, Andrés Piazza LACRALO Chair -----Mensaje original----- De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Alan Greenberg Enviado el: miércoles, 15 de julio de 2009 12:10 a.m. Para: ALAC Working List Asunto: Re: [ALAC] Draft Agenda for ALAC ExCom meeting of 15th July Two comments: At 14/07/2009 07:49 PM, carlos aguirre wrote:
Another Question: Why EX Comm is currently formed by Nom Comm appointees, and no by RALO representatives?, Nom Comm appointees are better user representatives than RALO representatives? I don`t think so.
First, my understanding is that both Cheryl and Sébastien are elected by their RALOs and are not NomCom appointees. Second, all four officers positions were filled by candidates who were not opposed - two from RALOs, two from NomCom. And if they had been opposed, whoever was elected would have been selected by the majority of voters, as democracy dictates. NomCom appointees are not de facto better user representatives than RALO representatives, but perhaps not de facto worse either. At 14/07/2009 08:19 PM, Andres Piazza wrote:
About the last part, I don´t think that anyone could disagree with, for example, ALAN´s words. But this is not an easy matter to raise. Firstly, because some of the analysis are made in quantity matters, but not with a complete vision. I share many of the comments but be carefull, who is who to be jugdamental to the performance of other ALAC Members?
Specially RALO Leaders! Are we in a position to say something so strongly about ALAC Members from our region? The whole RALO elected them, not just ourselves. And also, they or some other person could also come with some criticism with the role of one of us, RALO leaders. And they could use many different criteria to analyze that (for example: "What are RALO Leaders from that region that hardly can encourage 1 or 2 ALS rep to be involved in remote participation during the meeting?. I put this example because FOR ME, in LACRALO, a lot of work is done in private emails, chats, calls, with members from the region to encourage, answer doubts, and etc etc, more that to be in some particular WG providing what is just my personal opinion). I could continue the whole night providing examples, but is not the sense.
I´m not saying that this "performance discussion" shouldn´t be raised, but just to be careful and not to put this as an argument against other idea that has been displayed.
I guess we may have a different vision here. In my mind, RALO leaders are elected by their ALSs to take responsibility for their RALO. That is what leadership is all about. I agree that this is potentially a very difficult job. It is not easy to formally assess performance in cases such as this, and particularly when the person being assessed is a colleague. But that is the job that RALO leaders have been given, and they must use all of their skills to try to understand how effective their ALAC representatives are. And they will no doubt have to talk to other ALAC members to try to make this assessment. It is important (in my mind) to differentiate between someone who is working effectively within the RALO, and someone who is working well within the ALAC. You can have one without the other (in both directions). So should we be careful in both setting up the rules and then carrying them out? Most certainly! But ignoring the responsibility should not be one of the options. 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 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.387 / Virus Database: 270.13.14/2238 - Release Date: 07/14/09 18:03:00
Dear all, I will not try to quote every message that appeared on the list in the past 12 hours. We should be reminded that 2/3 of the ALAC are *elected* representatives. If a decision has to be made regarding the removal of some individual from the ALAC, this should be the decision of the group that has elected him/her. How this is happening is the RALO's business. It is not up to the ALAC to set up its own court. I do challenge the idea that "they should work because their travel is funded". Expenses reimbursement is not a salary, and ALAC members are not on ICANN's payroll, ie they are not employees. This funding does not compensate for unpaid leave, loss of business, either. This being said, I agree that whoever is willing to apply for a volunteer position needs to deliver to the best of his/her ability. But this is only a matter of respect of one's own commitment to the community. What constitutes one's "best of his/her ability" is highly subjective. In that respect, I think the job description should clearly indicate what time commitments and skills are required to some level of detail. For example, the time schedule of the monthly teleconference call should be mentioned, so people get not caught up by surprise if this happens in the middle of their business day. My perspective regarding performance indicators is that they could provide an indicator to the ALSes whether or not they should reappoint a representative to the ALAC. However, it is not the only one. The job description is another useful input for RALOs. RALO sometimes also elect people on other criteria like gender or sub-regional balance. In the end, the "perfect" ALAC member is the one that suits the RALO, not necessarily one that suits other ALAC members. Regarding NomCom appointees, I think much of the above applies, too. Any information the ALAC can input into the NomCom process to help them nominate the right ALAC member will certainly be much appreciated. As for the ExCom, I think it is a useful tool for the ALAC to have a bunch of people who are willing to commit extra time to expedite urgent business *when needed*. However, a permanent ExCom is not a good idea, especially because we have monthly meetings. The odds that something urgent happens between two teleconferences seems rather limited, to me at least. Patrick -- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/patrickvw
Excellent !!!!! I totally agree. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:21:46 +0200 From: patrick@vande-walle.eu To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] Draft Agenda for ALAC ExCom meeting of 15th July
Dear all,
I will not try to quote every message that appeared on the list in the past 12 hours.
We should be reminded that 2/3 of the ALAC are *elected* representatives. If a decision has to be made regarding the removal of some individual from the ALAC, this should be the decision of the group that has elected him/her. How this is happening is the RALO's business. It is not up to the ALAC to set up its own court.
I do challenge the idea that "they should work because their travel is funded". Expenses reimbursement is not a salary, and ALAC members are not on ICANN's payroll, ie they are not employees. This funding does not compensate for unpaid leave, loss of business, either. This being said, I agree that whoever is willing to apply for a volunteer position needs to deliver to the best of his/her ability. But this is only a matter of respect of one's own commitment to the community. What constitutes one's "best of his/her ability" is highly subjective.
In that respect, I think the job description should clearly indicate what time commitments and skills are required to some level of detail. For example, the time schedule of the monthly teleconference call should be mentioned, so people get not caught up by surprise if this happens in the middle of their business day.
My perspective regarding performance indicators is that they could provide an indicator to the ALSes whether or not they should reappoint a representative to the ALAC. However, it is not the only one. The job description is another useful input for RALOs. RALO sometimes also elect people on other criteria like gender or sub-regional balance. In the end, the "perfect" ALAC member is the one that suits the RALO, not necessarily one that suits other ALAC members.
Regarding NomCom appointees, I think much of the above applies, too. Any information the ALAC can input into the NomCom process to help them nominate the right ALAC member will certainly be much appreciated.
As for the ExCom, I think it is a useful tool for the ALAC to have a bunch of people who are willing to commit extra time to expedite urgent business *when needed*. However, a permanent ExCom is not a good idea, especially because we have monthly meetings. The odds that something urgent happens between two teleconferences seems rather limited, to me at least.
Patrick
-- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/patrickvw
_______________________________________________ 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
_________________________________________________________________ Disfrutá los mejores videos de MSN mientras chateas http://messengertv.msn.com/mkt/es-ar/
Hello All, AFRALO does not understand the amount of time and energy repeatedly spent on this issue. AFRALO is asking one question: is it the problem ? All the other 4 members seem to be ok in the Exec Com. Sorry but I just want to understand. Best, Fatimata On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 1:13 PM, carlos aguirre <carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com
wrote:
Excellent !!!!! I totally agree.
Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:21:46 +0200 From: patrick@vande-walle.eu To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] Draft Agenda for ALAC ExCom meeting of 15th July
Dear all,
I will not try to quote every message that appeared on the list in the past 12 hours.
We should be reminded that 2/3 of the ALAC are *elected* representatives. If a decision has to be made regarding the removal of some individual from the ALAC, this should be the decision of the group that has elected him/her. How this is happening is the RALO's business. It is not up to the ALAC to set up its own court.
I do challenge the idea that "they should work because their travel is funded". Expenses reimbursement is not a salary, and ALAC members are not on ICANN's payroll, ie they are not employees. This funding does not compensate for unpaid leave, loss of business, either. This being said, I agree that whoever is willing to apply for a volunteer position needs to deliver to the best of his/her ability. But this is only a matter of respect of one's own commitment to the community. What constitutes one's "best of his/her ability" is highly subjective.
In that respect, I think the job description should clearly indicate what time commitments and skills are required to some level of detail. For example, the time schedule of the monthly teleconference call should be mentioned, so people get not caught up by surprise if this happens in the middle of their business day.
My perspective regarding performance indicators is that they could provide an indicator to the ALSes whether or not they should reappoint a representative to the ALAC. However, it is not the only one. The job description is another useful input for RALOs. RALO sometimes also elect people on other criteria like gender or sub-regional balance. In the end, the "perfect" ALAC member is the one that suits the RALO, not necessarily one that suits other ALAC members.
Regarding NomCom appointees, I think much of the above applies, too. Any information the ALAC can input into the NomCom process to help them nominate the right ALAC member will certainly be much appreciated.
As for the ExCom, I think it is a useful tool for the ALAC to have a bunch of people who are willing to commit extra time to expedite urgent business *when needed*. However, a permanent ExCom is not a good idea, especially because we have monthly meetings. The odds that something urgent happens between two teleconferences seems rather limited, to me at least.
Patrick
-- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/patrickvw
_______________________________________________ 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
_________________________________________________________________ Disfrutá los mejores videos de MSN mientras chateas http://messengertv.msn.com/mkt/es-ar/ _______________________________________________ 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
-- Fatimata Seye Sylla
Fatimata Seye Sylla wrote:
AFRALO does not understand the amount of time and energy repeatedly spent on this issue. First of all, please define "repeatedly". The last sustained (but unresolved) discussion on this issue was in December.
Second, did AFRALO -- the organization itself -- collectively express this lack of understanding of the issue? If so, I would be delighted to participate in your next regional conference call to explain. Please ask your related staff person to place this issue on the agenda of the August 5 AFRALO call. - Evan
Thank you Evan. But I don't think you are providing an answer to my question. I represent AFRALO and have the mandate to ask this question on their behalf. I don't think I have to give you a justification. Fatimata On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Fatimata Seye Sylla wrote:
AFRALO does not understand the amount of time and energy repeatedly spent on this issue. First of all, please define "repeatedly". The last sustained (but unresolved) discussion on this issue was in December.
Second, did AFRALO -- the organization itself -- collectively express this lack of understanding of the issue? If so, I would be delighted to participate in your next regional conference call to explain. Please ask your related staff person to place this issue on the agenda of the August 5 AFRALO call.
- Evan
-- Fatimata Seye Sylla
Fatimata Seye Sylla wrote:
Thank you Evan. But I don't think you are providing an answer to my question. I represent AFRALO and have the mandate to ask this question on their behalf. I don't think I have to give you a justification.
OK, then. The answer to your question is "yes". - Evan
Patrick, Did you read the job description? Almost everything you were talking about below IS in the job description (job expectations, time commitments, etc.). So, why would somebody apply for a job that they are unable/uncommitted to do? Also, how are the RALOs supposed to know which of their elected reps are performing or not? They have NO idea who shows up to which f2f meetings. They have NO idea if they are attending all of the calls and managing the WGs, either, without performance evaluations being done in a timely manner. If things were run as you suggest, being elected becomes a popularity contest with no need to actually DO anything! :) D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Vande Walle Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 5:22 AM To: ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [ALAC] Draft Agenda for ALAC ExCom meeting of 15th July Dear all, I will not try to quote every message that appeared on the list in the past 12 hours. We should be reminded that 2/3 of the ALAC are *elected* representatives. If a decision has to be made regarding the removal of some individual from the ALAC, this should be the decision of the group that has elected him/her. How this is happening is the RALO's business. It is not up to the ALAC to set up its own court. I do challenge the idea that "they should work because their travel is funded". Expenses reimbursement is not a salary, and ALAC members are not on ICANN's payroll, ie they are not employees. This funding does not compensate for unpaid leave, loss of business, either. This being said, I agree that whoever is willing to apply for a volunteer position needs to deliver to the best of his/her ability. But this is only a matter of respect of one's own commitment to the community. What constitutes one's "best of his/her ability" is highly subjective. In that respect, I think the job description should clearly indicate what time commitments and skills are required to some level of detail. For example, the time schedule of the monthly teleconference call should be mentioned, so people get not caught up by surprise if this happens in the middle of their business day. My perspective regarding performance indicators is that they could provide an indicator to the ALSes whether or not they should reappoint a representative to the ALAC. However, it is not the only one. The job description is another useful input for RALOs. RALO sometimes also elect people on other criteria like gender or sub-regional balance. In the end, the "perfect" ALAC member is the one that suits the RALO, not necessarily one that suits other ALAC members. Regarding NomCom appointees, I think much of the above applies, too. Any information the ALAC can input into the NomCom process to help them nominate the right ALAC member will certainly be much appreciated. As for the ExCom, I think it is a useful tool for the ALAC to have a bunch of people who are willing to commit extra time to expedite urgent business *when needed*. However, a permanent ExCom is not a good idea, especially because we have monthly meetings. The odds that something urgent happens between two teleconferences seems rather limited, to me at least. Patrick -- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/patrickvw _______________________________________________ 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
Replying to both Evan's and Darlene's e-mails at once: DT> Did you read the job description? DT> So, why would somebody apply for a job that they DT> are unable/uncommitted to do? Maybe we should discuss the draft job description in another post. To summarize, I think it under-estimates both the time commitments and the necessary skills. We need a more detailed document. In my experience, volunteers are usually over-motivated and too optimistic with regard to their possible time commitment. Hence my suggestion for a thorough job description, so they are not taken by surprise. DT> Also, how are the RALOs supposed to know which of their elected reps are DT> performing or not? They have NO idea who shows up to which f2f DT> meetings. They have NO idea if they are attending all of the calls and DT> managing the WGs, either, without performance evaluations being done in DT> a timely manner. At best, those statistics give a truncated image of the reality. It only covers quantity, not quality, or ALAC-related work outside the committee. If I were an ALS that needs to elect a returning ALAC member, I would be much more interested in what he/she voted in previous polls, to see if I share his/her opinion. I would check his/her blog posts, tweets, personal comments to consultations, etc. That seems to me more important that to know he/she physically present to a specific meeting (but was actually too jetlagged to contribute). DT> If things were run as you suggest, being elected becomes a popularity DT> contest with no need to actually DO anything! EL> Patrick's emphatic defence of ALAC unaccountability is duly noted. I though I expressed a more nuanced opinion that what both of you seem to understand. As I said, if someone accepts a position, he/she is morally obligated to deliver to the best of his/her ability. Yes, Darlene, you are right, to a certain extent, this is a popularity contest. People get elected because the voters think they will do a good job and represent their opinion. Just like in parliament/congress elections, there might be representatives that will under-perform. This is exactly why their term is limited and they need to stand for re-election every few years. You may suggest to some people to step down, put pressure on them either directly or through their RALO. I can agree on this, while noting at the same time that the proposed statistical criteria do not give the whole picture. But I would not want to send out a message to the RALOs that their vote is ultimately not important, because we will have a group of people who will sovereignly decide who are the bad guys/girls and substitute themselves for the voters. This seems to me like a negation of the democratic process we have tried to set up within the At-Large. I will stop here, because I think the ALAC spends too much time on its internal processes, when it could actually spend time on policy instead. Let us get these documents out to the community for review, integrate their input and have the ALAC vote on it. Patrick -- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/patrickvw
Hi again, the question of accountability is - as Patrick argued - even more complex depending on levels of representation and accountability -- OR in what context and capacity you are doing a "job" or mandate (besides popularity, reputation, status and similar secondary considerations/factors): - when I was a professional (union or whatsoever functionary) working with volunteer communities or people, I had a strong and strict accountability and responsibility towards these people - simply due to the fact that I was paid for the "job" and they were not. - there may be a gradual difference between people at different ICANN constituencies like GAC, GNSO and others -- or whether people attending ICANN meetings can do this in the context of their regular jobs and during their working time stating over-time etc. (as usually GAC reps. and other business reps. do, according to my knowledge at least -- and how Patrick properly argued). - the most difficult and sensitive context are the jobs and mandates for ALAC and RALO functions from volunteers who have no organisation or structure in the back promoting this work. Even if you have a clear "job description", obvious expectations, set standards by previous performances or whatsoever ... on the ALAC and RALO level we have to deal with volunteers (who are “compensated” for meetings, as Patrick said) but do all the work during the mandate period normally during their spare time. And that makes the difference. You cannot measure professionals by the same standards of performance like volunteers. And therefore we have to discuss and find *appropriate standards* for time involvement, expectations, commitments, accountability and responsibility what fits to these people -- if we really want to enlarge, strengthen and to improve the bottom-up approach at ICANN, Best, Wolf Patrick Vande Walle wrote Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:25:
(...) At best, those statistics give a truncated image of the reality. It only covers quantity, not quality, or ALAC-related work outside the committee. If I were an ALS that needs to elect a returning ALAC member, I would be much more interested in what he/she voted in previous polls, to see if I share his/her opinion. I would check his/her blog posts, tweets, personal comments to consultations, etc. That seems to me more important that to know he/she physically present to a specific meeting (but was actually too jetlagged to contribute).
(...)
Yes, Darlene, you are right, to a certain extent, this is a popularity contest. People get elected because the voters think they will do a good job and represent their opinion. Just like in parliament/congress elections, there might be representatives that will under-perform. This is exactly why their term is limited and they need to stand for re-election every few years.
You may suggest to some people to step down, put pressure on them either directly or through their RALO. I can agree on this, while noting at the same time that the proposed statistical criteria do not give the whole picture. But I would not want to send out a message to the RALOs that their vote is ultimately not important, because we will have a group of people who will sovereignly decide who are the bad guys/girls and substitute themselves for the voters. This seems to me like a negation of the democratic process we have tried to set up within the At-Large.
I will stop here, because I think the ALAC spends too much time on its internal processes, when it could actually spend time on policy instead. Let us get these documents out to the community for review, integrate their input and have the ALAC vote on it.
Patrick
-- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/patrickvw
_______________________________________________ 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
comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net Digitale Allmend http://blog.allmend.ch - EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
We should be reminded that 2/3 of the ALAC are *elected* representatives. If a decision has to be made regarding the removal of some individual from the ALAC, this should be the decision of the group that has elected him/her. How this is happening is the RALO's business. It is not up to the ALAC to set up its own court.
Patrick's emphatic defence of ALAC unaccountability is duly noted. I would like to know who else in ALAC believes it has no responsibility to identify its un-performers. I'm sure your ALSs want to know. We should also be reminded that each RALO has elected (and one could infer recall) authority over 13% of ALAC. For the other 87% over which they are helpless, they have no choice but to trust that ALAC is taking reasonable steps to enforce its own job descriptions. Otherwise, why even bother with job descriptions if they are only "hints" at what someone should do but may be freely ignored? I am just as emphatic in the need for ALAC (as a group, not just the sum of its parts) to be accountable to its sizeable constituency. There exist various grounds for removal and censure at the ALAC level. We were recently reminded about consequences of bad language and personal attack; why should meeting absence or lack of preparation be tolerated any more than "disrespectful communications"? In the case of NomComm appointees who underperform, the *only* recourse open to ALAC is to pressure them into either stepping up or stepping down (as well as to embarass the NomComm if it sends us lemons). Handled properly and with appropriate discretion, embarrassments can be minimized -- after all, the end goal is a better-functioning ALAC, not the public dressing-down of volunteers. However, there is much to do, and the core fact remains clear that the ExecComm wouldn't be necessary if all ALAC members shouldered their fair share of the workload. If a RALO elects representatives who are personally popular in their region but are dragging ALAC down by not doing their part, ALAC should be informing the RALO of this. Doing so is not just a matter of duty to the global At-Large community, but a service to the other ALAC members who must pick up the slack of the underperformers. I agree that ALAC members who are elected by RALOs are ultimately responsible to their regions. But ALAC also has a responsibility to the community it is trusted to represent to do the best job that it can, and that means pushing -- and sometimes pressuring -- its own members just to serve the function they were chosen to do. As I complain about the Executive Committee, I note fully that this is only a symptom. I deeply dislike the tactic but can fully understand the strategy and appreciate the motivation. I will be first in line to applaud the work the ExecComm members have done -- the work they have been forced to do. The two-thirds of ALAC that is not on the ExecComm ought to really be concerned about the workload that they are allowing to be placed on that last third. That ALAC members would argue against its own setting and enforcement of minimum performance standards should be a concern in the broader At-Large community. I will do my best to adress this, at least with our own 13% of ALAC. - Evan
Dear all, I am on my way out and had difficulties to follow all the postings in detail from today on the issue. But the arguments forwarded by Patrick are substantial and convincing to me. He didn't say that ALAC has no say if a regional representative doesn't fulfil the expectations and commitments -- but people elected by RALOs have a certain responsibility towards their community and RALOs should be involved if there is a problem with their representative. IMO there is a double accountability: a) towards the region that elected/delegated them and b) towards the ALAC constituency they are part of. Would prefer to discuss such important issues in a F2F meeting with you. Best, Wolf Patrick Vande Walle wrote Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:21:
Dear all,
I will not try to quote every message that appeared on the list in the past 12 hours.
We should be reminded that 2/3 of the ALAC are *elected* representatives. If a decision has to be made regarding the removal of some individual from the ALAC, this should be the decision of the group that has elected him/her. How this is happening is the RALO's business. It is not up to the ALAC to set up its own court.
I do challenge the idea that "they should work because their travel is funded". Expenses reimbursement is not a salary, and ALAC members are not on ICANN's payroll, ie they are not employees. This funding does not compensate for unpaid leave, loss of business, either. This being said, I agree that whoever is willing to apply for a volunteer position needs to deliver to the best of his/her ability. But this is only a matter of respect of one's own commitment to the community. What constitutes one's "best of his/her ability" is highly subjective.
In that respect, I think the job description should clearly indicate what time commitments and skills are required to some level of detail. For example, the time schedule of the monthly teleconference call should be mentioned, so people get not caught up by surprise if this happens in the middle of their business day.
My perspective regarding performance indicators is that they could provide an indicator to the ALSes whether or not they should reappoint a representative to the ALAC. However, it is not the only one. The job description is another useful input for RALOs. RALO sometimes also elect people on other criteria like gender or sub-regional balance. In the end, the "perfect" ALAC member is the one that suits the RALO, not necessarily one that suits other ALAC members.
Regarding NomCom appointees, I think much of the above applies, too. Any information the ALAC can input into the NomCom process to help them nominate the right ALAC member will certainly be much appreciated.
As for the ExCom, I think it is a useful tool for the ALAC to have a bunch of people who are willing to commit extra time to expedite urgent business *when needed*. However, a permanent ExCom is not a good idea, especially because we have monthly meetings. The odds that something urgent happens between two teleconferences seems rather limited, to me at least.
Patrick
-- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/patrickvw
_______________________________________________ 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
comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net Digitale Allmend http://blog.allmend.ch - EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
participants (8)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Andres Piazza -
carlos aguirre -
Evan Leibovitch -
Fatimata Seye Sylla -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Thompson, Darlene -
Wolf Ludwig