Draft text for ALAC Response to BGC WG Report on ALAC Review Points 4 to 6
Dear AtLarge, here is my first few para for the Second part of our response to the Board Governance Working Group Report on AtLarge Review. * On Effectiveness and participation * *4. Educating and engaging the ALSs should be an immediate priority; compliance should be a longer term goal. * We agree that there is a good room to improve the participation of ALSs in our RALO and AtLarge activities. For that reason, we have been working very hard to organize the Summit – a global meeting of all ALSs to come to one place together. We also note that it is very important for us to continue our outreach work to recruit more new ALSs, and also explore ways to setup a mechanism where individuals who have keen interest in ICANN policy areas while she or he may not have strong interest in joining any of the existing ALSs with good reasons. To achieve these, we hope that ICANN continue to provide sufficient resources. *5. ALAC should develop strategic and operational plans (including performance criteria and cost information) as part of ICANN's planning process * We agree that it is worth to consider developing Strategic and Operational Plans as suggested in WG Report. We like to work out the specific details in coming months. We also note and support that in the Independent Review Report, there were two recommendations *6. More effort needs to be put into developing accurate cost models for At Large activity * Together with the Recommendation 4 of the Independent Review Report "ICANN should implement on activity-based costing system", we support the idea of having cost model based on AtLarge activities. In fact, we advocate more transparency than current budget information on AtLarge activities. We also like to see clear distinction be made between specific AtLarge related costs and general ICANN out reach activity costs which benefits all ICANN constituencies, not specific to AtLarge. We also agree with the comments of WG Report on the Recommendation 5 of the Independent Review Report - while we need sufficient resource support to ALAC activities, we like specific ways on how to allocate the budget be left to the consultation and negotiation between ALAC Chair and ICANN staff. [Comments on Points 7 to 9 will come later]
Are there any response, reaction to the following points? I am curious to hear. izumi 2008/11/4 Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org>:
Dear AtLarge, here is my first few para for the Second part of our response to the Board Governance Working Group Report on AtLarge Review.
On Effectiveness and participation
4. Educating and engaging the ALSs should be an immediate priority; compliance should be a longer term goal.
We agree that there is a good room to improve the participation of ALSs in our RALO and AtLarge activities. For that reason, we have been working very hard to organize the Summit – a global meeting of all ALSs to come to one place together.
We also note that it is very important for us to continue our outreach work to recruit more new ALSs, and also explore ways to setup a mechanism where individuals who have keen interest in ICANN policy areas while she or he may not have strong interest in joining any of the existing ALSs with good reasons.
To achieve these, we hope that ICANN continue to provide sufficient resources.
5. ALAC should develop strategic and operational plans (including performance criteria and cost information) as part of ICANN's planning process
We agree that it is worth to consider developing Strategic and Operational Plans as suggested in WG Report. We like to work out the specific details in coming months. We also note and support that in the Independent Review Report, there were two recommendations
6. More effort needs to be put into developing accurate cost models for At Large activity
Together with the Recommendation 4 of the Independent Review Report "ICANN should implement on activity-based costing system", we support the idea of having cost model based on AtLarge activities. In fact, we advocate more transparency than current budget information on AtLarge activities. We also like to see clear distinction be made between specific AtLarge related costs and general ICANN out reach activity costs which benefits all ICANN constituencies, not specific to AtLarge.
We also agree with the comments of WG Report on the Recommendation 5 of the Independent Review Report - while we need sufficient resource support to ALAC activities, we like specific ways on how to allocate the budget be left to the consultation and negotiation between ALAC Chair and ICANN staff.
[Comments on Points 7 to 9 will come later]
-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org
I have a comment on compliance in point 4: In my opinion, engagement and recruitment of ALSs needs to go hand in hand with compliance. It does not serve our purpose to go recruit a bunch of groups that may or may not be legitimate only then later to rule them out. What needs to transpire are a number of actions, activities and events that attract ALSs (and users, for that matter) into ALAC. Paramount among these is to demonstrate that there is an actual purpose to being in ALAC. I have a comment on point 5: In my opinion, strategic and operational planning should be the highest-priority activity for ALAC. It is almost entirely reactionary; it needs to be in the loop of policy formation and discussion at the initial phase, not forced to run hither and yon trying to comment on 15 different consultations at once. Most critical to strategic planning is making priorities, and these priorities need to be in concert with the priorities of users. ________________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [iza@anr.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 7:26 AM To: ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [ALAC] Draft text for ALAC Response to BGC WG Report on ALAC Review Points 4 to 6 Are there any response, reaction to the following points? I am curious to hear. izumi 2008/11/4 Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org>:
Dear AtLarge, here is my first few para for the Second part of our response to the Board Governance Working Group Report on AtLarge Review.
On Effectiveness and participation
4. Educating and engaging the ALSs should be an immediate priority; compliance should be a longer term goal.
We agree that there is a good room to improve the participation of ALSs in our RALO and AtLarge activities. For that reason, we have been working very hard to organize the Summit – a global meeting of all ALSs to come to one place together.
We also note that it is very important for us to continue our outreach work to recruit more new ALSs, and also explore ways to setup a mechanism where individuals who have keen interest in ICANN policy areas while she or he may not have strong interest in joining any of the existing ALSs with good reasons.
To achieve these, we hope that ICANN continue to provide sufficient resources.
5. ALAC should develop strategic and operational plans (including performance criteria and cost information) as part of ICANN's planning process
We agree that it is worth to consider developing Strategic and Operational Plans as suggested in WG Report. We like to work out the specific details in coming months. We also note and support that in the Independent Review Report, there were two recommendations
6. More effort needs to be put into developing accurate cost models for At Large activity
Together with the Recommendation 4 of the Independent Review Report "ICANN should implement on activity-based costing system", we support the idea of having cost model based on AtLarge activities. In fact, we advocate more transparency than current budget information on AtLarge activities. We also like to see clear distinction be made between specific AtLarge related costs and general ICANN out reach activity costs which benefits all ICANN constituencies, not specific to AtLarge.
We also agree with the comments of WG Report on the Recommendation 5 of the Independent Review Report - while we need sufficient resource support to ALAC activities, we like specific ways on how to allocate the budget be left to the consultation and negotiation between ALAC Chair and ICANN staff.
[Comments on Points 7 to 9 will come later]
-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org _______________________________________________ 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 *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
participants (2)
-
Brendler, Beau -
Izumi AIZU