Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Internal] ALAC in an evolving ICANN.
*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
On 5 Jul 2012, at 12:04, JJS wrote:
*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.*
In looking at the needs over time and the fact that the structure needs to be simple and flexible, I think picking any one configuration can be difficult, unless it is the most basic. I think that the multi-region nature of ALAC is critical and the most basic. If the ExecComm has real function then its structure needs to be representative of the regions. I think it would be problematic to not consider this. Perhaps the reason only a minority spoke up to support is because they all thought it was basic and a given. I think the necessary functions can vary over time; the 3 you have seem right, but there may be others and they may need to be split between a few people in times of great pressure. I beleive that the ExecComm should have the flexibility to assign the roles as needed, including reaching beyond and including observers if necessary - if (e.g. hypothetical) the IANA Political Crisis of 2015 is incredibly knotty and requires a single point of focus for ExecComm activities, the ExecComm should be able to decide in the regionally balanced ExecComm how to do this. avri
On 5 July 2012 12:48, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
In looking at the needs over time and the fact that the structure needs to be simple and flexible, I think picking any one configuration can be difficult, unless it is the most basic.
I think that the multi-region nature of ALAC is critical and the most basic. If the ExecComm has real function then its structure needs to be representative of the regions. I think it would be problematic to not consider this. Perhaps the reason only a minority spoke up to support is because they all thought it was basic and a given.
I think the necessary functions can vary over time; the 3 you have seem right, but there may be others and they may need to be split between a few people in times of great pressure.
Agree heartily on all of these. (and how often has THAT happened lately? ;-) ) Beyond that, I disagree on the specific grouping of the three and continue to maintain that policy -- as a core product of At-Large -- is not just a sub-group of structure and is in fact quite different in its deliverables, its target audience and its human resource requirements. The three-way split should be slightly different: - Communications: Community, Outreach, External Relations - Structure: Finance, Administration, Process, Accountability & Transparency - Policy: gTLDs, Internationalization, Accessibility, User Rights (We do not do enough in Legal to justify it a separate realm, but Accountability & Transparency -- which encompasses conflict-of-interest issues -- ought to be there) - Evan
*Dear Salanieta & All,* * * *thanks for including my remarks. A few quick comments:* * * *- What's the main issue here? As already mentioned, I thought it necessary to draw the attention of my colleagues in ALAC to a number of emerging patterns which may affect the general Internet user, whether within ICANN or in a wider context. My purpose was to invite us to focus on some major challenges. In order to do this, it is my belief that we must set up clearer lines of responsibility within the ALAC, in order to better follow and address those wider issues. My aim was not to impose any rigid, take-it-or-leave-it solution, such as 3 or 5 individuals with the title of Vice-Chair, or any other title for that matter. My analysis led me to the conclusion that we need to be more issue-oriented.* * * *- Structure? The alternatives you have suggested all have merit. Regarding the number of line leaders, the figure 5 would fit in neatly with our regional structures, whereas a more issue-oriented approach might warrant only 3 or 4. Whether they be entrusted to Vice-Chairs or any other appellation is a subsidiary question. But whatever our choice, I think we need to organize our work -and our consciousness of issues- in a more forward-looking manner.* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques.* 2012/7/5 Avri Doria <avri@acm.org>
On 5 Jul 2012, at 12:04, JJS wrote:
*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.*
In looking at the needs over time and the fact that the structure needs to be simple and flexible, I think picking any one configuration can be difficult, unless it is the most basic.
I think that the multi-region nature of ALAC is critical and the most basic. If the ExecComm has real function then its structure needs to be representative of the regions. I think it would be problematic to not consider this. Perhaps the reason only a minority spoke up to support is because they all thought it was basic and a given.
I think the necessary functions can vary over time; the 3 you have seem right, but there may be others and they may need to be split between a few people in times of great pressure. I beleive that the ExecComm should have the flexibility to assign the roles as needed, including reaching beyond and including observers if necessary - if (e.g. hypothetical) the IANA Political Crisis of 2015 is incredibly knotty and requires a single point of focus for ExecComm activities, the ExecComm should be able to decide in the regionally balanced ExecComm how to do this.
avri
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
participants (3)
-
Avri Doria -
Evan Leibovitch -
JJS