APRALO colleagues As Siranush had informed you already, I am on a working group (headed by Cheryl Langdon-Orr) that is looking at measuring the performance of ALAC members (as expected in the ALAC Rules of Procedure). We are later to be looking at ALSes and RALOs. It is an extremely difficult thing to do when: * the people in these positions are volunteers who have offered to do this work out of the goodness of their hearts - how do you measure their contribution to a task that has been set? * the Board and Management are becoming more vocal about getting value for money spent within the system - it costs a lot of money to bring the committees of the ICANN system together for each meeting. three times a year. They rightfully want to know that they are getting their money's worth. * it is very difficult to ascertain what METRICS are appropriate to measure each particular type of performance (attendance? contribution? value of contribution? others?) As ALSes you elect your APRALO representatives on the ALAC (me and Holly) and although Raf has been appointed to the ALAC as and APRALO NOMCOM candidate - the expectations should be the same. Therefore I'd really like to hear not only about WHAT performance criteria should be evaluated but also HOW it might be appropriately measured. I would like to use the advice of the ALSes to put together an evaluative process which could help us evaluate all the groups we have been tasked to evaluate. This is what we are looking at, at the moment: 1. Do ALAC members attend all the meetings they should? Some attend the face to face meetings, but not the online meetings. ICANN is not looking at these candidates very favourably. 2. Do ALAC members who attend the meetings actually contribute anything to the meetings? Some attend meetings but they don't say anything - what value do they give? Some log into teleconference meetings, but because they don't contribute anything, it is difficult to know whether they actually listening?) 3. Do ALAC members participate on working groups? We have lots of members who volunteer for a working group, and never turn up for meetings to do the work. Its the same people every time doing the work . There may be other questions you may want to ask. Please do... Very importantly, HOW can we more effectively evaluate performance - what do you use in your workplace? Let me know.. I'd love to hear from you. Maureen
Thank you for the reminders, Maureen. On this bit --
3. Do ALAC members participate on working groups? We have lots of members who volunteer for a working group, and never turn up for meetings to do the work. Its the same people every time doing the work .
I'd tried to find people here (even outside ISOC-PH) who could actively and constructively participate in the various WGs. Unfortunately, no takers so far, and i really don't like the idea of simply "tapping" someone who may not be as committed to the work or drop the ball. For myself, i'm already committed to policy issues on the local front and cannot honestly make any further commitments until ... oh, after December 2014? :) Apologies for not having attended the last APRALO call, i noticed it only after the meeting had taken place (buried in email backlog), but will, of course, make future APRALO calls. Best, WYn On 11/24/2013 12:52 PM, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
APRALO colleagues
As Siranush had informed you already, I am on a working group (headed by Cheryl Langdon-Orr) that is looking at measuring the performance of ALAC members (as expected in the ALAC Rules of Procedure). We are later to be looking at ALSes and RALOs.
It is an extremely difficult thing to do when: * the people in these positions are volunteers who have offered to do this work out of the goodness of their hearts - how do you measure their contribution to a task that has been set? * the Board and Management are becoming more vocal about getting value for money spent within the system - it costs a lot of money to bring the committees of the ICANN system together for each meeting. three times a year. They rightfully want to know that they are getting their money's worth. * it is very difficult to ascertain what METRICS are appropriate to measure each particular type of performance (attendance? contribution? value of contribution? others?)
As ALSes you elect your APRALO representatives on the ALAC (me and Holly) and although Raf has been appointed to the ALAC as and APRALO NOMCOM candidate - the expectations should be the same.
Therefore I'd really like to hear not only about WHAT performance criteria should be evaluated but also HOW it might be appropriately measured. I would like to use the advice of the ALSes to put together an evaluative process which could help us evaluate all the groups we have been tasked to evaluate.
This is what we are looking at, at the moment:
1. Do ALAC members attend all the meetings they should? Some attend the face to face meetings, but not the online meetings. ICANN is not looking at these candidates very favourably.
2. Do ALAC members who attend the meetings actually contribute anything to the meetings? Some attend meetings but they don't say anything - what value do they give? Some log into teleconference meetings, but because they don't contribute anything, it is difficult to know whether they actually listening?)
3. Do ALAC members participate on working groups? We have lots of members who volunteer for a working group, and never turn up for meetings to do the work. Its the same people every time doing the work .
There may be other questions you may want to ask. Please do...
Very importantly, HOW can we more effectively evaluate performance - what do you use in your workplace?
Let me know.. I'd love to hear from you.
Maureen _______________________________________________
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
These are my thoughts based on not been an ALAC member (nor do I have time to). I would support a more closer monitoring approach to the ALAC performance review and would like to see the evaluations distributed to the relevant RALO's as we are the ones who nominate and put our trust in our representatives to provide our views and then to report back to us. I would expect that participation in all meetings, emails and Work Groups would be at the very minimum 90%. There are so many issues at present it would be hard not to have a voice at a meeting. Saying this, I would also expect that any new ALAC appointments are mentored and giving an appropriate transition period and were made to feel comfortable to ask for help. Some cultural and language barriers may also exist and should be considered. If people are under-performing, then perhaps a mechanism of someone talking to them in a non threating manner to see if there is any assistance required etc. Perhaps too, some way of recognition for the long hours and dedication may also be a motivation. This is likely to be more of a RALO initiative though. -----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maureen Hilyard Sent: Sunday, 24 November 2013 5:52 p.m. To: APRALO Subject: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS APRALO colleagues As Siranush had informed you already, I am on a working group (headed by Cheryl Langdon-Orr) that is looking at measuring the performance of ALAC members (as expected in the ALAC Rules of Procedure). We are later to be looking at ALSes and RALOs. It is an extremely difficult thing to do when: * the people in these positions are volunteers who have offered to do this work out of the goodness of their hearts - how do you measure their contribution to a task that has been set? * the Board and Management are becoming more vocal about getting value for money spent within the system - it costs a lot of money to bring the committees of the ICANN system together for each meeting. three times a year. They rightfully want to know that they are getting their money's worth. * it is very difficult to ascertain what METRICS are appropriate to measure each particular type of performance (attendance? contribution? value of contribution? others?) As ALSes you elect your APRALO representatives on the ALAC (me and Holly) and although Raf has been appointed to the ALAC as and APRALO NOMCOM candidate - the expectations should be the same. Therefore I'd really like to hear not only about WHAT performance criteria should be evaluated but also HOW it might be appropriately measured. I would like to use the advice of the ALSes to put together an evaluative process which could help us evaluate all the groups we have been tasked to evaluate. This is what we are looking at, at the moment: 1. Do ALAC members attend all the meetings they should? Some attend the face to face meetings, but not the online meetings. ICANN is not looking at these candidates very favourably. 2. Do ALAC members who attend the meetings actually contribute anything to the meetings? Some attend meetings but they don't say anything - what value do they give? Some log into teleconference meetings, but because they don't contribute anything, it is difficult to know whether they actually listening?) 3. Do ALAC members participate on working groups? We have lots of members who volunteer for a working group, and never turn up for meetings to do the work. Its the same people every time doing the work . There may be other questions you may want to ask. Please do... Very importantly, HOW can we more effectively evaluate performance - what do you use in your workplace? Let me know.. I'd love to hear from you. Maureen _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
Thank you KT for your comments and suggestions. These are all very helpful. Regards Maureen -----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Karaitiana Taiuru Sent: Monday, 25 November 2013 12:12 p.m. To: 'APRALO' Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS These are my thoughts based on not been an ALAC member (nor do I have time to). I would support a more closer monitoring approach to the ALAC performance review and would like to see the evaluations distributed to the relevant RALO's as we are the ones who nominate and put our trust in our representatives to provide our views and then to report back to us. I would expect that participation in all meetings, emails and Work Groups would be at the very minimum 90%. There are so many issues at present it would be hard not to have a voice at a meeting. Saying this, I would also expect that any new ALAC appointments are mentored and giving an appropriate transition period and were made to feel comfortable to ask for help. Some cultural and language barriers may also exist and should be considered. If people are under-performing, then perhaps a mechanism of someone talking to them in a non threating manner to see if there is any assistance required etc. Perhaps too, some way of recognition for the long hours and dedication may also be a motivation. This is likely to be more of a RALO initiative though. -----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maureen Hilyard Sent: Sunday, 24 November 2013 5:52 p.m. To: APRALO Subject: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS APRALO colleagues As Siranush had informed you already, I am on a working group (headed by Cheryl Langdon-Orr) that is looking at measuring the performance of ALAC members (as expected in the ALAC Rules of Procedure). We are later to be looking at ALSes and RALOs. It is an extremely difficult thing to do when: * the people in these positions are volunteers who have offered to do this work out of the goodness of their hearts - how do you measure their contribution to a task that has been set? * the Board and Management are becoming more vocal about getting value for money spent within the system - it costs a lot of money to bring the committees of the ICANN system together for each meeting. three times a year. They rightfully want to know that they are getting their money's worth. * it is very difficult to ascertain what METRICS are appropriate to measure each particular type of performance (attendance? contribution? value of contribution? others?) As ALSes you elect your APRALO representatives on the ALAC (me and Holly) and although Raf has been appointed to the ALAC as and APRALO NOMCOM candidate - the expectations should be the same. Therefore I'd really like to hear not only about WHAT performance criteria should be evaluated but also HOW it might be appropriately measured. I would like to use the advice of the ALSes to put together an evaluative process which could help us evaluate all the groups we have been tasked to evaluate. This is what we are looking at, at the moment: 1. Do ALAC members attend all the meetings they should? Some attend the face to face meetings, but not the online meetings. ICANN is not looking at these candidates very favourably. 2. Do ALAC members who attend the meetings actually contribute anything to the meetings? Some attend meetings but they don't say anything - what value do they give? Some log into teleconference meetings, but because they don't contribute anything, it is difficult to know whether they actually listening?) 3. Do ALAC members participate on working groups? We have lots of members who volunteer for a working group, and never turn up for meetings to do the work. Its the same people every time doing the work . There may be other questions you may want to ask. Please do... Very importantly, HOW can we more effectively evaluate performance - what do you use in your workplace? Let me know.. I'd love to hear from you. Maureen _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
Good day Maureen, First of all we have always to but in mind as your correctly stated that this is a volunteer work from the members, but on the other hand I do agree that up to certain extent there should be a fair KPI’s in place to evaluate the performance of ALAC members. Also I am quite sure that selected or nominated ALAC members for these leadership positions were based on their knowledge , commitment and experience as well as high performance otherwise they will not be part of the team. Hence measuring criteria would always be much clearer and effective if it is set for Quantitative factors rather than Qualitative once. *So having said that then I would like to address the following: * o Attending meetings by it self is not a goal or objective therefore it can not be part of the measuring criteria independently. o Also participation and contribution to the meeting discussion can not be evaluated as a performance measure * Thereafter to have a process in place that gives an indication of the member performance I would suggest the following * o ALAC members should be assigned to Chair a WG’s § With this type of assignment the member will logically be accountable and responsible of a set deliverables that he/she have to achieve, and this can be measured and evaluated for the following set of KPI’s · Time to deliver · Commitment · Team working · Developing others (member of the group) · Others o ALAC members and chair of RALO’s jointly should be responsible for engaging the ALS’s in work and activities related to the rejoin at least and should provide a monthly call report on this. § This is different activity from the RALO monthly call; this should be done separately to reach out the ALS’s through a pre-plan agenda and time frame. § The objective is to get in touch with ALS’s members outside the official call and tries to understand their needs and requirements and also will be a good tool maybe to get them engage in if they are not active. So this is more of OUTREACH on a small scale and more of direct communication. Should you need any clarification then please let me know by email or a call, I will be more than happy to discuss. On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Maureen Hilyard <hilyard@oyster.net.ck>wrote:
Thank you KT for your comments and suggestions. These are all very helpful.
Regards Maureen
-----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Karaitiana Taiuru Sent: Monday, 25 November 2013 12:12 p.m. To: 'APRALO' Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
These are my thoughts based on not been an ALAC member (nor do I have time to).
I would support a more closer monitoring approach to the ALAC performance review and would like to see the evaluations distributed to the relevant RALO's as we are the ones who nominate and put our trust in our representatives to provide our views and then to report back to us.
I would expect that participation in all meetings, emails and Work Groups would be at the very minimum 90%. There are so many issues at present it would be hard not to have a voice at a meeting.
Saying this, I would also expect that any new ALAC appointments are mentored and giving an appropriate transition period and were made to feel comfortable to ask for help. Some cultural and language barriers may also exist and should be considered.
If people are under-performing, then perhaps a mechanism of someone talking to them in a non threating manner to see if there is any assistance required etc.
Perhaps too, some way of recognition for the long hours and dedication may also be a motivation. This is likely to be more of a RALO initiative though.
-----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maureen Hilyard Sent: Sunday, 24 November 2013 5:52 p.m. To: APRALO Subject: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
APRALO colleagues
As Siranush had informed you already, I am on a working group (headed by Cheryl Langdon-Orr) that is looking at measuring the performance of ALAC members (as expected in the ALAC Rules of Procedure). We are later to be looking at ALSes and RALOs.
It is an extremely difficult thing to do when: * the people in these positions are volunteers who have offered to do this work out of the goodness of their hearts - how do you measure their contribution to a task that has been set? * the Board and Management are becoming more vocal about getting value for money spent within the system - it costs a lot of money to bring the committees of the ICANN system together for each meeting. three times a year. They rightfully want to know that they are getting their money's worth. * it is very difficult to ascertain what METRICS are appropriate to measure each particular type of performance (attendance? contribution? value of contribution? others?)
As ALSes you elect your APRALO representatives on the ALAC (me and Holly) and although Raf has been appointed to the ALAC as and APRALO NOMCOM candidate - the expectations should be the same.
Therefore I'd really like to hear not only about WHAT performance criteria should be evaluated but also HOW it might be appropriately measured. I would like to use the advice of the ALSes to put together an evaluative process which could help us evaluate all the groups we have been tasked to evaluate.
This is what we are looking at, at the moment:
1. Do ALAC members attend all the meetings they should? Some attend the face to face meetings, but not the online meetings. ICANN is not looking at these candidates very favourably.
2. Do ALAC members who attend the meetings actually contribute anything to the meetings? Some attend meetings but they don't say anything - what value do they give? Some log into teleconference meetings, but because they don't contribute anything, it is difficult to know whether they actually listening?)
3. Do ALAC members participate on working groups? We have lots of members who volunteer for a working group, and never turn up for meetings to do the work. Its the same people every time doing the work .
There may be other questions you may want to ask. Please do...
Very importantly, HOW can we more effectively evaluate performance - what do you use in your workplace?
Let me know.. I'd love to hear from you.
Maureen _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
-- Thanks Ali AlMeshal Bahrain Internet Society - BIS Board Member & Director of Strategic Alliances Professional Public speaker in ICT and e-Business Payment Industry Expert Advisor Mobile: +973 39440025 Skype: alialmeshal email: dralialmeshal@gmail.com ali.almeshal@bis.org.bh www.bis.org.bh Twitter :@internetBH
Thank you Ali. This breadth of feedback is very much appreciated. Maureen From: Ali AlMeshal [mailto:dralialmeshal@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 27 November 2013 12:45 a.m. To: Maureen Hilyard Cc: Karaitiana Taiuru; APRALO; METRICS Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS Good day Maureen, First of all we have always to but in mind as your correctly stated that this is a volunteer work from the members, but on the other hand I do agree that up to certain extent there should be a fair KPIs in place to evaluate the performance of ALAC members. Also I am quite sure that selected or nominated ALAC members for these leadership positions were based on their knowledge , commitment and experience as well as high performance otherwise they will not be part of the team. Hence measuring criteria would always be much clearer and effective if it is set for Quantitative factors rather than Qualitative once. So having said that then I would like to address the following: o Attending meetings by it self is not a goal or objective therefore it can not be part of the measuring criteria independently. o Also participation and contribution to the meeting discussion can not be evaluated as a performance measure Thereafter to have a process in place that gives an indication of the member performance I would suggest the following o ALAC members should be assigned to Chair a WGs § With this type of assignment the member will logically be accountable and responsible of a set deliverables that he/she have to achieve, and this can be measured and evaluated for the following set of KPIs · Time to deliver · Commitment · Team working · Developing others (member of the group) · Others o ALAC members and chair of RALOs jointly should be responsible for engaging the ALSs in work and activities related to the rejoin at least and should provide a monthly call report on this. § This is different activity from the RALO monthly call; this should be done separately to reach out the ALSs through a pre-plan agenda and time frame. § The objective is to get in touch with ALSs members outside the official call and tries to understand their needs and requirements and also will be a good tool maybe to get them engage in if they are not active. So this is more of OUTREACH on a small scale and more of direct communication. Should you need any clarification then please let me know by email or a call, I will be more than happy to discuss. On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Maureen Hilyard <hilyard@oyster.net.ck> wrote: Thank you KT for your comments and suggestions. These are all very helpful. Regards Maureen -----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Karaitiana Taiuru Sent: Monday, 25 November 2013 12:12 p.m. To: 'APRALO' Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS These are my thoughts based on not been an ALAC member (nor do I have time to). I would support a more closer monitoring approach to the ALAC performance review and would like to see the evaluations distributed to the relevant RALO's as we are the ones who nominate and put our trust in our representatives to provide our views and then to report back to us. I would expect that participation in all meetings, emails and Work Groups would be at the very minimum 90%. There are so many issues at present it would be hard not to have a voice at a meeting. Saying this, I would also expect that any new ALAC appointments are mentored and giving an appropriate transition period and were made to feel comfortable to ask for help. Some cultural and language barriers may also exist and should be considered. If people are under-performing, then perhaps a mechanism of someone talking to them in a non threating manner to see if there is any assistance required etc. Perhaps too, some way of recognition for the long hours and dedication may also be a motivation. This is likely to be more of a RALO initiative though. -----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maureen Hilyard Sent: Sunday, 24 November 2013 5:52 p.m. To: APRALO Subject: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS APRALO colleagues As Siranush had informed you already, I am on a working group (headed by Cheryl Langdon-Orr) that is looking at measuring the performance of ALAC members (as expected in the ALAC Rules of Procedure). We are later to be looking at ALSes and RALOs. It is an extremely difficult thing to do when: * the people in these positions are volunteers who have offered to do this work out of the goodness of their hearts - how do you measure their contribution to a task that has been set? * the Board and Management are becoming more vocal about getting value for money spent within the system - it costs a lot of money to bring the committees of the ICANN system together for each meeting. three times a year. They rightfully want to know that they are getting their money's worth. * it is very difficult to ascertain what METRICS are appropriate to measure each particular type of performance (attendance? contribution? value of contribution? others?) As ALSes you elect your APRALO representatives on the ALAC (me and Holly) and although Raf has been appointed to the ALAC as and APRALO NOMCOM candidate - the expectations should be the same. Therefore I'd really like to hear not only about WHAT performance criteria should be evaluated but also HOW it might be appropriately measured. I would like to use the advice of the ALSes to put together an evaluative process which could help us evaluate all the groups we have been tasked to evaluate. This is what we are looking at, at the moment: 1. Do ALAC members attend all the meetings they should? Some attend the face to face meetings, but not the online meetings. ICANN is not looking at these candidates very favourably. 2. Do ALAC members who attend the meetings actually contribute anything to the meetings? Some attend meetings but they don't say anything - what value do they give? Some log into teleconference meetings, but because they don't contribute anything, it is difficult to know whether they actually listening?) 3. Do ALAC members participate on working groups? We have lots of members who volunteer for a working group, and never turn up for meetings to do the work. Its the same people every time doing the work . There may be other questions you may want to ask. Please do... Very importantly, HOW can we more effectively evaluate performance - what do you use in your workplace? Let me know.. I'd love to hear from you. Maureen _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org -- Thanks Ali AlMeshal Bahrain Internet Society - BIS Board Member & Director of Strategic Alliances Professional Public speaker in ICT and e-Business Payment Industry Expert Advisor Mobile: +973 39440025 Skype: alialmeshal email: dralialmeshal@gmail.com ali.almeshal@bis.org.bh www.bis.org.bh <http://www.bis.org.bh/> Twitter :@internetBH
Hello everyone. I like Ali's input on metrics about leadership of Working Groups for ALAC members. I would also suggest co-chairing of WG between an ALAC Member and an At-Large community member. This will help build collaborative skills and capacity along the way. Best regards, Rinalia On Nov 27, 2013 11:17 PM, "Maureen Hilyard" <hilyard@oyster.net.ck> wrote:
Thank you Ali. This breadth of feedback is very much appreciated.
Maureen
From: Ali AlMeshal [mailto:dralialmeshal@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 27 November 2013 12:45 a.m. To: Maureen Hilyard Cc: Karaitiana Taiuru; APRALO; METRICS Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
Good day Maureen,
First of all we have always to but in mind as your correctly stated that this is a volunteer work from the members, but on the other hand I do agree that up to certain extent there should be a fair KPI’s in place to evaluate the performance of ALAC members.
Also I am quite sure that selected or nominated ALAC members for these leadership positions were based on their knowledge , commitment and experience as well as high performance otherwise they will not be part of the team.
Hence measuring criteria would always be much clearer and effective if it is set for Quantitative factors rather than Qualitative once.
So having said that then I would like to address the following:
o Attending meetings by it self is not a goal or objective therefore it can not be part of the measuring criteria independently.
o Also participation and contribution to the meeting discussion can not be evaluated as a performance measure
Thereafter to have a process in place that gives an indication of the member performance I would suggest the following
o ALAC members should be assigned to Chair a WG’s
§ With this type of assignment the member will logically be accountable and responsible of a set deliverables that he/she have to achieve, and this can be measured and evaluated for the following set of KPI’s
· Time to deliver
· Commitment
· Team working
· Developing others (member of the group)
· Others
o ALAC members and chair of RALO’s jointly should be responsible for engaging the ALS’s in work and activities related to the rejoin at least and should provide a monthly call report on this.
§ This is different activity from the RALO monthly call; this should be done separately to reach out the ALS’s through a pre-plan agenda and time frame.
§ The objective is to get in touch with ALS’s members outside the official call and tries to understand their needs and requirements and also will be a good tool maybe to get them engage in if they are not active. So this is more of OUTREACH on a small scale and more of direct communication.
Should you need any clarification then please let me know by email or a call, I will be more than happy to discuss.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Maureen Hilyard <hilyard@oyster.net.ck> wrote:
Thank you KT for your comments and suggestions. These are all very helpful.
Regards Maureen
-----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
Karaitiana Taiuru Sent: Monday, 25 November 2013 12:12 p.m. To: 'APRALO' Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
These are my thoughts based on not been an ALAC member (nor do I have time to).
I would support a more closer monitoring approach to the ALAC performance review and would like to see the evaluations distributed to the relevant RALO's as we are the ones who nominate and put our trust in our representatives to provide our views and then to report back to us.
I would expect that participation in all meetings, emails and Work Groups would be at the very minimum 90%. There are so many issues at present it would be hard not to have a voice at a meeting.
Saying this, I would also expect that any new ALAC appointments are mentored and giving an appropriate transition period and were made to feel comfortable to ask for help. Some cultural and language barriers may also exist and should be considered.
If people are under-performing, then perhaps a mechanism of someone talking to them in a non threating manner to see if there is any assistance required etc.
Perhaps too, some way of recognition for the long hours and dedication may also be a motivation. This is likely to be more of a RALO initiative though.
-----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maureen Hilyard Sent: Sunday, 24 November 2013 5:52 p.m. To: APRALO Subject: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
APRALO colleagues
As Siranush had informed you already, I am on a working group (headed by Cheryl Langdon-Orr) that is looking at measuring the performance of ALAC members (as expected in the ALAC Rules of Procedure). We are later to be looking at ALSes and RALOs.
It is an extremely difficult thing to do when: * the people in these positions are volunteers who have offered to do this work out of the goodness of their hearts - how do you measure their contribution to a task that has been set? * the Board and Management are becoming more vocal about getting value for money spent within the system - it costs a lot of money to bring the committees of the ICANN system together for each meeting. three times a year. They rightfully want to know that they are getting their money's worth. * it is very difficult to ascertain what METRICS are appropriate to measure each particular type of performance (attendance? contribution? value of contribution? others?)
As ALSes you elect your APRALO representatives on the ALAC (me and Holly) and although Raf has been appointed to the ALAC as and APRALO NOMCOM candidate - the expectations should be the same.
Therefore I'd really like to hear not only about WHAT performance criteria should be evaluated but also HOW it might be appropriately measured. I would like to use the advice of the ALSes to put together an evaluative process which could help us evaluate all the groups we have been tasked to evaluate.
This is what we are looking at, at the moment:
1. Do ALAC members attend all the meetings they should? Some attend the face to face meetings, but not the online meetings. ICANN is not looking at these candidates very favourably.
2. Do ALAC members who attend the meetings actually contribute anything to the meetings? Some attend meetings but they don't say anything - what value do they give? Some log into teleconference meetings, but because they don't contribute anything, it is difficult to know whether they actually listening?)
3. Do ALAC members participate on working groups? We have lots of members who volunteer for a working group, and never turn up for meetings to do the work. Its the same people every time doing the work .
There may be other questions you may want to ask. Please do...
Very importantly, HOW can we more effectively evaluate performance - what do you use in your workplace?
Let me know.. I'd love to hear from you.
Maureen _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
--
Thanks
Ali AlMeshal
Bahrain Internet Society - BIS
Board Member & Director of Strategic Alliances
Professional Public speaker in ICT and e-Business
Payment Industry Expert Advisor
Mobile: +973 39440025
Skype: alialmeshal
email: dralialmeshal@gmail.com
ali.almeshal@bis.org.bh
www.bis.org.bh <http://www.bis.org.bh/>
Twitter :@internetBH
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
I believe one of the most important metrics component should be built on the fact that if a member suggests something, how many of those suggestions were actually accepted and incorporated into the system. One small example is that I've proposed individual membership in the past during 2010, created the paperwork suggesting the policy reform in the APRALO articles, presented it and then silence. This would have enhanced participation, inclusion of more productive talent and people that are sensitive about ICANN and IG related issues. Such talent thus has to move under a narrower scope into the ncuc/ncsg and APRALO loses out. Somehow the belief that only groups can represent the rights of the users is a fantasy. For example, in the technical community and most in ISOC circles, most of the members in a recognized ALS are not actually CS or information rights activists but people with corporate day jobs and of companies that actually should fall under contracted parties ac/oc's in ICANN. The value that comes into such an organizational system are actually the members, the system itself cannot come up with ideas and transform the ideas into workable actions. Participation collapses when member ideas are not viewed as valuable input and organizations that don't believe in agility to change and adapt to round the clock innovation and improvements basically fall short on rationality for existence and support in the future. If the participation in meetings and tele-cons are an evaluative criteria for calculating value for money, something is seriously wrong with ICANN and the people who are attempting to address such issues by adopting such a weak and lame course of action. KPIs are measured against activities and participation in telecons and meetings are not such an input or expected outcome. The indicators can be established on a the basis of number of members present and number of comments, suggestions and recommendations received during any calls/meetings and the actions were taken on them. The second level would be number of policy comments requested by ICANN and the number of members that voted on them, the time taken to make comments or recommendations, total number of policy requests for comments and number of comments made to policy requests. Its actually a very simple and straightforward thing. List down all the things that ALAC and its members do. Against those activities a scorecard can be developed and benchmarked against other AC/OC work. I'll think more about this. On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello everyone.
I like Ali's input on metrics about leadership of Working Groups for ALAC members. I would also suggest co-chairing of WG between an ALAC Member and an At-Large community member. This will help build collaborative skills and capacity along the way.
Best regards,
Rinalia On Nov 27, 2013 11:17 PM, "Maureen Hilyard" <hilyard@oyster.net.ck> wrote:
Thank you Ali. This breadth of feedback is very much appreciated.
Maureen
From: Ali AlMeshal [mailto:dralialmeshal@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 27 November 2013 12:45 a.m. To: Maureen Hilyard Cc: Karaitiana Taiuru; APRALO; METRICS Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
Good day Maureen,
First of all we have always to but in mind as your correctly stated that this is a volunteer work from the members, but on the other hand I do agree that up to certain extent there should be a fair KPI’s in place to evaluate the performance of ALAC members.
Also I am quite sure that selected or nominated ALAC members for these leadership positions were based on their knowledge , commitment and experience as well as high performance otherwise they will not be part of the team.
Hence measuring criteria would always be much clearer and effective if it is set for Quantitative factors rather than Qualitative once.
So having said that then I would like to address the following:
o Attending meetings by it self is not a goal or objective therefore it can not be part of the measuring criteria independently.
o Also participation and contribution to the meeting discussion can not be evaluated as a performance measure
Thereafter to have a process in place that gives an indication of the member performance I would suggest the following
o ALAC members should be assigned to Chair a WG’s
§ With this type of assignment the member will logically be accountable and responsible of a set deliverables that he/she have to achieve, and this can be measured and evaluated for the following set of KPI’s
· Time to deliver
· Commitment
· Team working
· Developing others (member of the group)
· Others
o ALAC members and chair of RALO’s jointly should be responsible for engaging the ALS’s in work and activities related to the rejoin at least and should provide a monthly call report on this.
§ This is different activity from the RALO monthly call; this should be done separately to reach out the ALS’s through a pre-plan agenda and time frame.
§ The objective is to get in touch with ALS’s members outside the official call and tries to understand their needs and requirements and also will be a good tool maybe to get them engage in if they are not active. So this is more of OUTREACH on a small scale and more of direct communication.
Should you need any clarification then please let me know by email or a call, I will be more than happy to discuss.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Maureen Hilyard <hilyard@oyster.net.ck> wrote:
Thank you KT for your comments and suggestions. These are all very helpful.
Regards Maureen
-----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
Karaitiana Taiuru Sent: Monday, 25 November 2013 12:12 p.m. To: 'APRALO' Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
These are my thoughts based on not been an ALAC member (nor do I have time to).
I would support a more closer monitoring approach to the ALAC performance review and would like to see the evaluations distributed to the relevant RALO's as we are the ones who nominate and put our trust in our representatives to provide our views and then to report back to us.
I would expect that participation in all meetings, emails and Work Groups would be at the very minimum 90%. There are so many issues at present it would be hard not to have a voice at a meeting.
Saying this, I would also expect that any new ALAC appointments are mentored and giving an appropriate transition period and were made to feel comfortable to ask for help. Some cultural and language barriers may also exist and should be considered.
If people are under-performing, then perhaps a mechanism of someone talking to them in a non threating manner to see if there is any assistance required etc.
Perhaps too, some way of recognition for the long hours and dedication may also be a motivation. This is likely to be more of a RALO initiative though.
-----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maureen Hilyard Sent: Sunday, 24 November 2013 5:52 p.m. To: APRALO Subject: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
APRALO colleagues
As Siranush had informed you already, I am on a working group (headed by Cheryl Langdon-Orr) that is looking at measuring the performance of ALAC members (as expected in the ALAC Rules of Procedure). We are later to be looking at ALSes and RALOs.
It is an extremely difficult thing to do when: * the people in these positions are volunteers who have offered to do this work out of the goodness of their hearts - how do you measure their contribution to a task that has been set? * the Board and Management are becoming more vocal about getting value for money spent within the system - it costs a lot of money to bring the committees of the ICANN system together for each meeting. three times a year. They rightfully want to know that they are getting their money's worth. * it is very difficult to ascertain what METRICS are appropriate to measure each particular type of performance (attendance? contribution? value of contribution? others?)
As ALSes you elect your APRALO representatives on the ALAC (me and Holly) and although Raf has been appointed to the ALAC as and APRALO NOMCOM candidate - the expectations should be the same.
Therefore I'd really like to hear not only about WHAT performance criteria should be evaluated but also HOW it might be appropriately measured. I would like to use the advice of the ALSes to put together an evaluative process which could help us evaluate all the groups we have been tasked to evaluate.
This is what we are looking at, at the moment:
1. Do ALAC members attend all the meetings they should? Some attend the face to face meetings, but not the online meetings. ICANN is not looking at these candidates very favourably.
2. Do ALAC members who attend the meetings actually contribute anything to the meetings? Some attend meetings but they don't say anything - what value do they give? Some log into teleconference meetings, but because they don't contribute anything, it is difficult to know whether they actually listening?)
3. Do ALAC members participate on working groups? We have lots of members who volunteer for a working group, and never turn up for meetings to do the work. Its the same people every time doing the work .
There may be other questions you may want to ask. Please do...
Very importantly, HOW can we more effectively evaluate performance - what do you use in your workplace?
Let me know.. I'd love to hear from you.
Maureen _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
--
Thanks
Ali AlMeshal
Bahrain Internet Society - BIS
Board Member & Director of Strategic Alliances
Professional Public speaker in ICT and e-Business
Payment Industry Expert Advisor
Mobile: +973 39440025
Skype: alialmeshal
email: dralialmeshal@gmail.com
ali.almeshal@bis.org.bh
www.bis.org.bh <http://www.bis.org.bh/>
Twitter :@internetBH
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
Thank you Fouad. You have offered another interesting perspective. Maureen On 28 November 2013 06:16, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe one of the most important metrics component should be built on the fact that if a member suggests something, how many of those suggestions were actually accepted and incorporated into the system.
One small example is that I've proposed individual membership in the past during 2010, created the paperwork suggesting the policy reform in the APRALO articles, presented it and then silence. This would have enhanced participation, inclusion of more productive talent and people that are sensitive about ICANN and IG related issues. Such talent thus has to move under a narrower scope into the ncuc/ncsg and APRALO loses out.
Somehow the belief that only groups can represent the rights of the users is a fantasy. For example, in the technical community and most in ISOC circles, most of the members in a recognized ALS are not actually CS or information rights activists but people with corporate day jobs and of companies that actually should fall under contracted parties ac/oc's in ICANN.
The value that comes into such an organizational system are actually the members, the system itself cannot come up with ideas and transform the ideas into workable actions.
Participation collapses when member ideas are not viewed as valuable input and organizations that don't believe in agility to change and adapt to round the clock innovation and improvements basically fall short on rationality for existence and support in the future.
If the participation in meetings and tele-cons are an evaluative criteria for calculating value for money, something is seriously wrong with ICANN and the people who are attempting to address such issues by adopting such a weak and lame course of action.
KPIs are measured against activities and participation in telecons and meetings are not such an input or expected outcome.
The indicators can be established on a the basis of number of members present and number of comments, suggestions and recommendations received during any calls/meetings and the actions were taken on them. The second level would be number of policy comments requested by ICANN and the number of members that voted on them, the time taken to make comments or recommendations, total number of policy requests for comments and number of comments made to policy requests.
Its actually a very simple and straightforward thing. List down all the things that ALAC and its members do. Against those activities a scorecard can be developed and benchmarked against other AC/OC work.
I'll think more about this.
Hello everyone.
I like Ali's input on metrics about leadership of Working Groups for ALAC members. I would also suggest co-chairing of WG between an ALAC Member and an At-Large community member. This will help build collaborative skills and capacity along the way.
Best regards,
Rinalia On Nov 27, 2013 11:17 PM, "Maureen Hilyard" <hilyard@oyster.net.ck> wrote:
Thank you Ali. This breadth of feedback is very much appreciated.
Maureen
From: Ali AlMeshal [mailto:dralialmeshal@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 27 November 2013 12:45 a.m. To: Maureen Hilyard Cc: Karaitiana Taiuru; APRALO; METRICS Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
Good day Maureen,
First of all we have always to but in mind as your correctly stated
this is a volunteer work from the members, but on the other hand I do agree that up to certain extent there should be a fair KPI’s in place to evaluate the performance of ALAC members.
Also I am quite sure that selected or nominated ALAC members for these leadership positions were based on their knowledge , commitment and experience as well as high performance otherwise they will not be part of the team.
Hence measuring criteria would always be much clearer and effective if it is set for Quantitative factors rather than Qualitative once.
So having said that then I would like to address the following:
o Attending meetings by it self is not a goal or objective therefore it can not be part of the measuring criteria independently.
o Also participation and contribution to the meeting discussion can not be evaluated as a performance measure
Thereafter to have a process in place that gives an indication of the member performance I would suggest the following
o ALAC members should be assigned to Chair a WG’s
§ With this type of assignment the member will logically be accountable and responsible of a set deliverables that he/she have to achieve, and this can be measured and evaluated for the following set of KPI’s
· Time to deliver
· Commitment
· Team working
· Developing others (member of the group)
· Others
o ALAC members and chair of RALO’s jointly should be responsible for engaging the ALS’s in work and activities related to the rejoin at least and should provide a monthly call report on this.
§ This is different activity from the RALO monthly call; this should be done separately to reach out the ALS’s through a pre-plan agenda and time frame.
§ The objective is to get in touch with ALS’s members outside the official call and tries to understand their needs and requirements and also will be a good tool maybe to get them engage in if they are not active. So this is more of OUTREACH on a small scale and more of direct communication.
Should you need any clarification then please let me know by email or a call, I will be more than happy to discuss.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Maureen Hilyard <hilyard@oyster.net.ck
wrote:
Thank you KT for your comments and suggestions. These are all very helpful.
Regards Maureen
-----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
Karaitiana Taiuru Sent: Monday, 25 November 2013 12:12 p.m. To: 'APRALO' Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
These are my thoughts based on not been an ALAC member (nor do I have time to).
I would support a more closer monitoring approach to the ALAC
review and would like to see the evaluations distributed to the relevant RALO's as we are the ones who nominate and put our trust in our representatives to provide our views and then to report back to us.
I would expect that participation in all meetings, emails and Work Groups would be at the very minimum 90%. There are so many issues at present it would be hard not to have a voice at a meeting.
Saying this, I would also expect that any new ALAC appointments are mentored and giving an appropriate transition period and were made to feel comfortable to ask for help. Some cultural and language barriers may also exist and should be considered.
If people are under-performing, then perhaps a mechanism of someone talking to them in a non threating manner to see if there is any assistance required etc.
Perhaps too, some way of recognition for the long hours and dedication may also be a motivation. This is likely to be more of a RALO initiative though.
-----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maureen Hilyard Sent: Sunday, 24 November 2013 5:52 p.m. To: APRALO Subject: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
APRALO colleagues
As Siranush had informed you already, I am on a working group (headed by Cheryl Langdon-Orr) that is looking at measuring the performance of ALAC members (as expected in the ALAC Rules of Procedure). We are later to be looking at ALSes and RALOs.
It is an extremely difficult thing to do when: * the people in these positions are volunteers who have offered to do
work out of the goodness of their hearts - how do you measure their contribution to a task that has been set? * the Board and Management are becoming more vocal about getting value for money spent within the system - it costs a lot of money to bring the committees of the ICANN system together for each meeting. three times a year. They rightfully want to know that they are getting their money's worth. * it is very difficult to ascertain what METRICS are appropriate to measure each particular type of performance (attendance? contribution? value of contribution? others?)
As ALSes you elect your APRALO representatives on the ALAC (me and Holly) and although Raf has been appointed to the ALAC as and APRALO NOMCOM candidate - the expectations should be the same.
Therefore I'd really like to hear not only about WHAT performance criteria should be evaluated but also HOW it might be appropriately measured. I would like to use the advice of the ALSes to put together an evaluative
which could help us evaluate all the groups we have been tasked to evaluate.
This is what we are looking at, at the moment:
1. Do ALAC members attend all the meetings they should? Some attend the face to face meetings, but not the online meetings. ICANN is not looking at these candidates very favourably.
2. Do ALAC members who attend the meetings actually contribute anything to the meetings? Some attend meetings but they don't say anything - what value do they give? Some log into teleconference meetings, but because they don't contribute anything, it is difficult to know whether they actually listening?)
3. Do ALAC members participate on working groups? We have lots of members who volunteer for a working group, and never turn up for meetings to do
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote: that performance this process the
work. Its the same people every time doing the work .
There may be other questions you may want to ask. Please do...
Very importantly, HOW can we more effectively evaluate performance - what do you use in your workplace?
Let me know.. I'd love to hear from you.
Maureen _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
--
Thanks
Ali AlMeshal
Bahrain Internet Society - BIS
Board Member & Director of Strategic Alliances
Professional Public speaker in ICT and e-Business
Payment Industry Expert Advisor
Mobile: +973 39440025
Skype: alialmeshal
email: dralialmeshal@gmail.com
ali.almeshal@bis.org.bh
www.bis.org.bh <http://www.bis.org.bh/>
Twitter :@internetBH
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
I concur with Fouad, There was a resolution passed in the APRALO meeting (in Beijing) to publish the APRALO brochure in Hindi. I even got the first cut draft of the same on which me and other ALSes from India gave their comments.... but thereafter inspite of my repeated reminders to APRALO staff and members no action have been to taken to finalise the Hindi draft of the brouchure till date. Also I have been advocating shifting the monthly calls of APRALO to weekend (in order to allow us to be able to attend these calls more frequently, since we are working professionals and it becomes difficult to focus on APRALO during our regular working days), but no action has been taken on the same till date. Unfortunately these calls get fixed as per the convenience of limited few, who also run the agenda for the calls, thus a very limited group dragging the entire agenda of APRALO. I am happy that this group now is looking into the practical aspects of resolving inefficiencies in the group and I congratulate them on the same. Three cheers!!! Regards Nirmol K Agarwal On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe one of the most important metrics component should be built on the fact that if a member suggests something, how many of those suggestions were actually accepted and incorporated into the system.
One small example is that I've proposed individual membership in the past during 2010, created the paperwork suggesting the policy reform in the APRALO articles, presented it and then silence. This would have enhanced participation, inclusion of more productive talent and people that are sensitive about ICANN and IG related issues. Such talent thus has to move under a narrower scope into the ncuc/ncsg and APRALO loses out.
Somehow the belief that only groups can represent the rights of the users is a fantasy. For example, in the technical community and most in ISOC circles, most of the members in a recognized ALS are not actually CS or information rights activists but people with corporate day jobs and of companies that actually should fall under contracted parties ac/oc's in ICANN.
The value that comes into such an organizational system are actually the members, the system itself cannot come up with ideas and transform the ideas into workable actions.
Participation collapses when member ideas are not viewed as valuable input and organizations that don't believe in agility to change and adapt to round the clock innovation and improvements basically fall short on rationality for existence and support in the future.
If the participation in meetings and tele-cons are an evaluative criteria for calculating value for money, something is seriously wrong with ICANN and the people who are attempting to address such issues by adopting such a weak and lame course of action.
KPIs are measured against activities and participation in telecons and meetings are not such an input or expected outcome.
The indicators can be established on a the basis of number of members present and number of comments, suggestions and recommendations received during any calls/meetings and the actions were taken on them. The second level would be number of policy comments requested by ICANN and the number of members that voted on them, the time taken to make comments or recommendations, total number of policy requests for comments and number of comments made to policy requests.
Its actually a very simple and straightforward thing. List down all the things that ALAC and its members do. Against those activities a scorecard can be developed and benchmarked against other AC/OC work.
I'll think more about this.
Hello everyone.
I like Ali's input on metrics about leadership of Working Groups for ALAC members. I would also suggest co-chairing of WG between an ALAC Member and an At-Large community member. This will help build collaborative skills and capacity along the way.
Best regards,
Rinalia On Nov 27, 2013 11:17 PM, "Maureen Hilyard" <hilyard@oyster.net.ck> wrote:
Thank you Ali. This breadth of feedback is very much appreciated.
Maureen
From: Ali AlMeshal [mailto:dralialmeshal@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 27 November 2013 12:45 a.m. To: Maureen Hilyard Cc: Karaitiana Taiuru; APRALO; METRICS Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
Good day Maureen,
First of all we have always to but in mind as your correctly stated
this is a volunteer work from the members, but on the other hand I do agree that up to certain extent there should be a fair KPI’s in place to evaluate the performance of ALAC members.
Also I am quite sure that selected or nominated ALAC members for these leadership positions were based on their knowledge , commitment and experience as well as high performance otherwise they will not be part of the team.
Hence measuring criteria would always be much clearer and effective if it is set for Quantitative factors rather than Qualitative once.
So having said that then I would like to address the following:
o Attending meetings by it self is not a goal or objective therefore it can not be part of the measuring criteria independently.
o Also participation and contribution to the meeting discussion can not be evaluated as a performance measure
Thereafter to have a process in place that gives an indication of the member performance I would suggest the following
o ALAC members should be assigned to Chair a WG’s
§ With this type of assignment the member will logically be accountable and responsible of a set deliverables that he/she have to achieve, and this can be measured and evaluated for the following set of KPI’s
· Time to deliver
· Commitment
· Team working
· Developing others (member of the group)
· Others
o ALAC members and chair of RALO’s jointly should be responsible for engaging the ALS’s in work and activities related to the rejoin at least and should provide a monthly call report on this.
§ This is different activity from the RALO monthly call; this should be done separately to reach out the ALS’s through a pre-plan agenda and time frame.
§ The objective is to get in touch with ALS’s members outside the official call and tries to understand their needs and requirements and also will be a good tool maybe to get them engage in if they are not active. So this is more of OUTREACH on a small scale and more of direct communication.
Should you need any clarification then please let me know by email or a call, I will be more than happy to discuss.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Maureen Hilyard <hilyard@oyster.net.ck
wrote:
Thank you KT for your comments and suggestions. These are all very helpful.
Regards Maureen
-----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
Karaitiana Taiuru Sent: Monday, 25 November 2013 12:12 p.m. To: 'APRALO' Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
These are my thoughts based on not been an ALAC member (nor do I have time to).
I would support a more closer monitoring approach to the ALAC
review and would like to see the evaluations distributed to the relevant RALO's as we are the ones who nominate and put our trust in our representatives to provide our views and then to report back to us.
I would expect that participation in all meetings, emails and Work Groups would be at the very minimum 90%. There are so many issues at present it would be hard not to have a voice at a meeting.
Saying this, I would also expect that any new ALAC appointments are mentored and giving an appropriate transition period and were made to feel comfortable to ask for help. Some cultural and language barriers may also exist and should be considered.
If people are under-performing, then perhaps a mechanism of someone talking to them in a non threating manner to see if there is any assistance required etc.
Perhaps too, some way of recognition for the long hours and dedication may also be a motivation. This is likely to be more of a RALO initiative though.
-----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maureen Hilyard Sent: Sunday, 24 November 2013 5:52 p.m. To: APRALO Subject: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
APRALO colleagues
As Siranush had informed you already, I am on a working group (headed by Cheryl Langdon-Orr) that is looking at measuring the performance of ALAC members (as expected in the ALAC Rules of Procedure). We are later to be looking at ALSes and RALOs.
It is an extremely difficult thing to do when: * the people in these positions are volunteers who have offered to do
work out of the goodness of their hearts - how do you measure their contribution to a task that has been set? * the Board and Management are becoming more vocal about getting value for money spent within the system - it costs a lot of money to bring the committees of the ICANN system together for each meeting. three times a year. They rightfully want to know that they are getting their money's worth. * it is very difficult to ascertain what METRICS are appropriate to measure each particular type of performance (attendance? contribution? value of contribution? others?)
As ALSes you elect your APRALO representatives on the ALAC (me and Holly) and although Raf has been appointed to the ALAC as and APRALO NOMCOM candidate - the expectations should be the same.
Therefore I'd really like to hear not only about WHAT performance criteria should be evaluated but also HOW it might be appropriately measured. I would like to use the advice of the ALSes to put together an evaluative
which could help us evaluate all the groups we have been tasked to evaluate.
This is what we are looking at, at the moment:
1. Do ALAC members attend all the meetings they should? Some attend the face to face meetings, but not the online meetings. ICANN is not looking at these candidates very favourably.
2. Do ALAC members who attend the meetings actually contribute anything to the meetings? Some attend meetings but they don't say anything - what value do they give? Some log into teleconference meetings, but because they don't contribute anything, it is difficult to know whether they actually listening?)
3. Do ALAC members participate on working groups? We have lots of members who volunteer for a working group, and never turn up for meetings to do
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote: that performance this process the
work. Its the same people every time doing the work .
There may be other questions you may want to ask. Please do...
Very importantly, HOW can we more effectively evaluate performance - what do you use in your workplace?
Let me know.. I'd love to hear from you.
Maureen _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
--
Thanks
Ali AlMeshal
Bahrain Internet Society - BIS
Board Member & Director of Strategic Alliances
Professional Public speaker in ICT and e-Business
Payment Industry Expert Advisor
Mobile: +973 39440025
Skype: alialmeshal
email: dralialmeshal@gmail.com
ali.almeshal@bis.org.bh
www.bis.org.bh <http://www.bis.org.bh/>
Twitter :@internetBH
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
-- CAUTION: PLEASE READ OUR "TERMS OF USE" BEFORE RELYING UPON ANY ADVISE TENDERED HEREIN. NOTE THE ADVISE GIVEN HEREIN SHALL NOT BE ADMISSIBLE IN ANY COURT OF LAW IN INDIA OR ABROAD AND IS MERELY IN THE NATURE OF A PERSONAL OPINION AND DONOT HAVE ANY STATUTORY VALUE.
Hi Nirmol On the first point, I have carried back a bunch of printed Hindi brochures with me from Buenos Aires. I can send them to you (or Heidi can send you some). I agree that it is important to communicate better amongst us. The next two meetings (Singapore and London) are both going to see the APRALO ALSes come together, so this is a good time to put things in order. satish On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Jurisonline in <admin@jurisonline.in>wrote:
I concur with Fouad, There was a resolution passed in the APRALO meeting (in Beijing) to publish the APRALO brochure in Hindi. I even got the first cut draft of the same on which me and other ALSes from India gave their comments.... but thereafter inspite of my repeated reminders to APRALO staff and members no action have been to taken to finalise the Hindi draft of the brouchure till date.
Also I have been advocating shifting the monthly calls of APRALO to weekend (in order to allow us to be able to attend these calls more frequently, since we are working professionals and it becomes difficult to focus on APRALO during our regular working days), but no action has been taken on the same till date. Unfortunately these calls get fixed as per the convenience of limited few, who also run the agenda for the calls, thus a very limited group dragging the entire agenda of APRALO.
I am happy that this group now is looking into the practical aspects of resolving inefficiencies in the group and I congratulate them on the same.
Three cheers!!! Regards Nirmol K Agarwal
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe one of the most important metrics component should be built on the fact that if a member suggests something, how many of those suggestions were actually accepted and incorporated into the system.
One small example is that I've proposed individual membership in the past during 2010, created the paperwork suggesting the policy reform in the APRALO articles, presented it and then silence. This would have enhanced participation, inclusion of more productive talent and people that are sensitive about ICANN and IG related issues. Such talent thus has to move under a narrower scope into the ncuc/ncsg and APRALO loses out.
Somehow the belief that only groups can represent the rights of the users is a fantasy. For example, in the technical community and most in ISOC circles, most of the members in a recognized ALS are not actually CS or information rights activists but people with corporate day jobs and of companies that actually should fall under contracted parties ac/oc's in ICANN.
The value that comes into such an organizational system are actually the members, the system itself cannot come up with ideas and transform the ideas into workable actions.
Participation collapses when member ideas are not viewed as valuable input and organizations that don't believe in agility to change and adapt to round the clock innovation and improvements basically fall short on rationality for existence and support in the future.
If the participation in meetings and tele-cons are an evaluative criteria for calculating value for money, something is seriously wrong with ICANN and the people who are attempting to address such issues by adopting such a weak and lame course of action.
KPIs are measured against activities and participation in telecons and meetings are not such an input or expected outcome.
The indicators can be established on a the basis of number of members present and number of comments, suggestions and recommendations received during any calls/meetings and the actions were taken on them. The second level would be number of policy comments requested by ICANN and the number of members that voted on them, the time taken to make comments or recommendations, total number of policy requests for comments and number of comments made to policy requests.
Its actually a very simple and straightforward thing. List down all the things that ALAC and its members do. Against those activities a scorecard can be developed and benchmarked against other AC/OC work.
I'll think more about this.
Hello everyone.
I like Ali's input on metrics about leadership of Working Groups for ALAC members. I would also suggest co-chairing of WG between an ALAC Member and an At-Large community member. This will help build collaborative skills and capacity along the way.
Best regards,
Rinalia On Nov 27, 2013 11:17 PM, "Maureen Hilyard" <hilyard@oyster.net.ck> wrote:
Thank you Ali. This breadth of feedback is very much appreciated.
Maureen
From: Ali AlMeshal [mailto:dralialmeshal@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 27 November 2013 12:45 a.m. To: Maureen Hilyard Cc: Karaitiana Taiuru; APRALO; METRICS Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
Good day Maureen,
First of all we have always to but in mind as your correctly stated
this is a volunteer work from the members, but on the other hand I do agree that up to certain extent there should be a fair KPI’s in place to evaluate the performance of ALAC members.
Also I am quite sure that selected or nominated ALAC members for these leadership positions were based on their knowledge , commitment and experience as well as high performance otherwise they will not be part of the team.
Hence measuring criteria would always be much clearer and effective if it is set for Quantitative factors rather than Qualitative once.
So having said that then I would like to address the following:
o Attending meetings by it self is not a goal or objective therefore it can not be part of the measuring criteria independently.
o Also participation and contribution to the meeting discussion can not be evaluated as a performance measure
Thereafter to have a process in place that gives an indication of
member performance I would suggest the following
o ALAC members should be assigned to Chair a WG’s
§ With this type of assignment the member will logically be accountable and responsible of a set deliverables that he/she have to achieve, and
can be measured and evaluated for the following set of KPI’s
· Time to deliver
· Commitment
· Team working
· Developing others (member of the group)
· Others
o ALAC members and chair of RALO’s jointly should be responsible for engaging the ALS’s in work and activities related to the rejoin at least and should provide a monthly call report on this.
§ This is different activity from the RALO monthly call; this should be done separately to reach out the ALS’s through a pre-plan agenda and time frame.
§ The objective is to get in touch with ALS’s members outside the official call and tries to understand their needs and requirements and also will be a good tool maybe to get them engage in if they are not active. So this is more of OUTREACH on a small scale and more of direct communication.
Should you need any clarification then please let me know by email or a call, I will be more than happy to discuss.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Maureen Hilyard < hilyard@oyster.net.ck
wrote:
Thank you KT for your comments and suggestions. These are all very helpful.
Regards Maureen
-----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
Karaitiana Taiuru Sent: Monday, 25 November 2013 12:12 p.m. To: 'APRALO' Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
These are my thoughts based on not been an ALAC member (nor do I have time to).
I would support a more closer monitoring approach to the ALAC
review and would like to see the evaluations distributed to the relevant RALO's as we are the ones who nominate and put our trust in our representatives to provide our views and then to report back to us.
I would expect that participation in all meetings, emails and Work Groups would be at the very minimum 90%. There are so many issues at present it would be hard not to have a voice at a meeting.
Saying this, I would also expect that any new ALAC appointments are mentored and giving an appropriate transition period and were made to feel comfortable to ask for help. Some cultural and language barriers may also exist and should be considered.
If people are under-performing, then perhaps a mechanism of someone talking to them in a non threating manner to see if there is any assistance required etc.
Perhaps too, some way of recognition for the long hours and dedication may also be a motivation. This is likely to be more of a RALO initiative though.
-----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maureen Hilyard Sent: Sunday, 24 November 2013 5:52 p.m. To: APRALO Subject: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
APRALO colleagues
As Siranush had informed you already, I am on a working group (headed by Cheryl Langdon-Orr) that is looking at measuring the performance of ALAC members (as expected in the ALAC Rules of Procedure). We are later to be looking at ALSes and RALOs.
It is an extremely difficult thing to do when: * the people in these positions are volunteers who have offered to do
work out of the goodness of their hearts - how do you measure their contribution to a task that has been set? * the Board and Management are becoming more vocal about getting value for money spent within the system - it costs a lot of money to bring the committees of the ICANN system together for each meeting. three times a year. They rightfully want to know that they are getting their money's worth. * it is very difficult to ascertain what METRICS are appropriate to measure each particular type of performance (attendance? contribution? value of contribution? others?)
As ALSes you elect your APRALO representatives on the ALAC (me and Holly) and although Raf has been appointed to the ALAC as and APRALO NOMCOM candidate - the expectations should be the same.
Therefore I'd really like to hear not only about WHAT performance criteria should be evaluated but also HOW it might be appropriately measured. I would like to use the advice of the ALSes to put together an evaluative
which could help us evaluate all the groups we have been tasked to evaluate.
This is what we are looking at, at the moment:
1. Do ALAC members attend all the meetings they should? Some attend
face to face meetings, but not the online meetings. ICANN is not looking at these candidates very favourably.
2. Do ALAC members who attend the meetings actually contribute anything to the meetings? Some attend meetings but they don't say anything - what value do they give? Some log into teleconference meetings, but because they don't contribute anything, it is difficult to know whether they actually listening?)
3. Do ALAC members participate on working groups? We have lots of members who volunteer for a working group, and never turn up for meetings to do
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote: that the this performance this process the the
work. Its the same people every time doing the work .
There may be other questions you may want to ask. Please do...
Very importantly, HOW can we more effectively evaluate performance - what do you use in your workplace?
Let me know.. I'd love to hear from you.
Maureen _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
--
Thanks
Ali AlMeshal
Bahrain Internet Society - BIS
Board Member & Director of Strategic Alliances
Professional Public speaker in ICT and e-Business
Payment Industry Expert Advisor
Mobile: +973 39440025
Skype: alialmeshal
email: dralialmeshal@gmail.com
ali.almeshal@bis.org.bh
www.bis.org.bh <http://www.bis.org.bh/>
Twitter :@internetBH
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
-- CAUTION: PLEASE READ OUR "TERMS OF USE" BEFORE RELYING UPON ANY ADVISE TENDERED HEREIN. NOTE THE ADVISE GIVEN HEREIN SHALL NOT BE ADMISSIBLE IN ANY COURT OF LAW IN INDIA OR ABROAD AND IS MERELY IN THE NATURE OF A PERSONAL OPINION AND DONOT HAVE ANY STATUTORY VALUE. _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
I sometimes believe that there are three components of successful organization and organizing, namely, rules or procedures, aspirations and finally pragmatism. If an organization only runs with the first element that is rules, it becomes a dictatorship. If it only runs with aspirations of a few then democracy becomes a challenge and if it only runs with pragmatism then it has to be leadership led listening less to the membership as it makes leadership insecure mostly driven by egos and that this is my baby and no one else has the right to tickle it but me. So an organization has to be the sum of Organization = Rules + Aspirations + Pragmatism = Listening/Agile Or simply put, an organization that can RAP and do LaLaLa on a daily basis. Best Regards Fouad Bajwa Sent from my mobile device On Nov 30, 2013, at 8:17 PM, Satish Babu <director@icfoss.in> wrote:
Hi Nirmol On the first point, I have carried back a bunch of printed Hindi brochures with me from Buenos Aires. I can send them to you (or Heidi can send you some).
I agree that it is important to communicate better amongst us. The next two meetings (Singapore and London) are both going to see the APRALO ALSes come together, so this is a good time to put things in order.
satish
On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Jurisonline in <admin@jurisonline.in> wrote: I concur with Fouad, There was a resolution passed in the APRALO meeting (in Beijing) to publish the APRALO brochure in Hindi. I even got the first cut draft of the same on which me and other ALSes from India gave their comments.... but thereafter inspite of my repeated reminders to APRALO staff and members no action have been to taken to finalise the Hindi draft of the brouchure till date.
Also I have been advocating shifting the monthly calls of APRALO to weekend (in order to allow us to be able to attend these calls more frequently, since we are working professionals and it becomes difficult to focus on APRALO during our regular working days), but no action has been taken on the same till date. Unfortunately these calls get fixed as per the convenience of limited few, who also run the agenda for the calls, thus a very limited group dragging the entire agenda of APRALO.
I am happy that this group now is looking into the practical aspects of resolving inefficiencies in the group and I congratulate them on the same.
Three cheers!!! Regards Nirmol K Agarwal
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe one of the most important metrics component should be built on the fact that if a member suggests something, how many of those suggestions were actually accepted and incorporated into the system.
One small example is that I've proposed individual membership in the past during 2010, created the paperwork suggesting the policy reform in the APRALO articles, presented it and then silence. This would have enhanced participation, inclusion of more productive talent and people that are sensitive about ICANN and IG related issues. Such talent thus has to move under a narrower scope into the ncuc/ncsg and APRALO loses out.
Somehow the belief that only groups can represent the rights of the users is a fantasy. For example, in the technical community and most in ISOC circles, most of the members in a recognized ALS are not actually CS or information rights activists but people with corporate day jobs and of companies that actually should fall under contracted parties ac/oc's in ICANN.
The value that comes into such an organizational system are actually the members, the system itself cannot come up with ideas and transform the ideas into workable actions.
Participation collapses when member ideas are not viewed as valuable input and organizations that don't believe in agility to change and adapt to round the clock innovation and improvements basically fall short on rationality for existence and support in the future.
If the participation in meetings and tele-cons are an evaluative criteria for calculating value for money, something is seriously wrong with ICANN and the people who are attempting to address such issues by adopting such a weak and lame course of action.
KPIs are measured against activities and participation in telecons and meetings are not such an input or expected outcome.
The indicators can be established on a the basis of number of members present and number of comments, suggestions and recommendations received during any calls/meetings and the actions were taken on them. The second level would be number of policy comments requested by ICANN and the number of members that voted on them, the time taken to make comments or recommendations, total number of policy requests for comments and number of comments made to policy requests.
Its actually a very simple and straightforward thing. List down all the things that ALAC and its members do. Against those activities a scorecard can be developed and benchmarked against other AC/OC work.
I'll think more about this.
Hello everyone.
I like Ali's input on metrics about leadership of Working Groups for ALAC members. I would also suggest co-chairing of WG between an ALAC Member and an At-Large community member. This will help build collaborative skills and capacity along the way.
Best regards,
Rinalia On Nov 27, 2013 11:17 PM, "Maureen Hilyard" <hilyard@oyster.net.ck> wrote:
Thank you Ali. This breadth of feedback is very much appreciated.
Maureen
From: Ali AlMeshal [mailto:dralialmeshal@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 27 November 2013 12:45 a.m. To: Maureen Hilyard Cc: Karaitiana Taiuru; APRALO; METRICS Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
Good day Maureen,
First of all we have always to but in mind as your correctly stated
this is a volunteer work from the members, but on the other hand I do agree that up to certain extent there should be a fair KPI’s in place to evaluate the performance of ALAC members.
Also I am quite sure that selected or nominated ALAC members for these leadership positions were based on their knowledge , commitment and experience as well as high performance otherwise they will not be part of the team.
Hence measuring criteria would always be much clearer and effective if it is set for Quantitative factors rather than Qualitative once.
So having said that then I would like to address the following:
o Attending meetings by it self is not a goal or objective therefore it can not be part of the measuring criteria independently.
o Also participation and contribution to the meeting discussion can not be evaluated as a performance measure
Thereafter to have a process in place that gives an indication of the member performance I would suggest the following
o ALAC members should be assigned to Chair a WG’s
§ With this type of assignment the member will logically be accountable and responsible of a set deliverables that he/she have to achieve, and this can be measured and evaluated for the following set of KPI’s
· Time to deliver
· Commitment
· Team working
· Developing others (member of the group)
· Others
o ALAC members and chair of RALO’s jointly should be responsible for engaging the ALS’s in work and activities related to the rejoin at least and should provide a monthly call report on this.
§ This is different activity from the RALO monthly call; this should be done separately to reach out the ALS’s through a pre-plan agenda and time frame.
§ The objective is to get in touch with ALS’s members outside the official call and tries to understand their needs and requirements and also will be a good tool maybe to get them engage in if they are not active. So this is more of OUTREACH on a small scale and more of direct communication.
Should you need any clarification then please let me know by email or a call, I will be more than happy to discuss.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Maureen Hilyard <hilyard@oyster.net.ck
wrote:
Thank you KT for your comments and suggestions. These are all very helpful.
Regards Maureen
-----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
Karaitiana Taiuru Sent: Monday, 25 November 2013 12:12 p.m. To: 'APRALO' Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
These are my thoughts based on not been an ALAC member (nor do I have time to).
I would support a more closer monitoring approach to the ALAC
review and would like to see the evaluations distributed to the relevant RALO's as we are the ones who nominate and put our trust in our representatives to provide our views and then to report back to us.
I would expect that participation in all meetings, emails and Work Groups would be at the very minimum 90%. There are so many issues at present it would be hard not to have a voice at a meeting.
Saying this, I would also expect that any new ALAC appointments are mentored and giving an appropriate transition period and were made to feel comfortable to ask for help. Some cultural and language barriers may also exist and should be considered.
If people are under-performing, then perhaps a mechanism of someone talking to them in a non threating manner to see if there is any assistance required etc.
Perhaps too, some way of recognition for the long hours and dedication may also be a motivation. This is likely to be more of a RALO initiative though.
-----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maureen Hilyard Sent: Sunday, 24 November 2013 5:52 p.m. To: APRALO Subject: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
APRALO colleagues
As Siranush had informed you already, I am on a working group (headed by Cheryl Langdon-Orr) that is looking at measuring the performance of ALAC members (as expected in the ALAC Rules of Procedure). We are later to be looking at ALSes and RALOs.
It is an extremely difficult thing to do when: * the people in these positions are volunteers who have offered to do
work out of the goodness of their hearts - how do you measure their contribution to a task that has been set? * the Board and Management are becoming more vocal about getting value for money spent within the system - it costs a lot of money to bring the committees of the ICANN system together for each meeting. three times a year. They rightfully want to know that they are getting their money's worth. * it is very difficult to ascertain what METRICS are appropriate to measure each particular type of performance (attendance? contribution? value of contribution? others?)
As ALSes you elect your APRALO representatives on the ALAC (me and Holly) and although Raf has been appointed to the ALAC as and APRALO NOMCOM candidate - the expectations should be the same.
Therefore I'd really like to hear not only about WHAT performance criteria should be evaluated but also HOW it might be appropriately measured. I would like to use the advice of the ALSes to put together an evaluative
which could help us evaluate all the groups we have been tasked to evaluate.
This is what we are looking at, at the moment:
1. Do ALAC members attend all the meetings they should? Some attend the face to face meetings, but not the online meetings. ICANN is not looking at these candidates very favourably.
2. Do ALAC members who attend the meetings actually contribute anything to the meetings? Some attend meetings but they don't say anything - what value do they give? Some log into teleconference meetings, but because they don't contribute anything, it is difficult to know whether they actually listening?)
3. Do ALAC members participate on working groups? We have lots of members who volunteer for a working group, and never turn up for meetings to do
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote: that performance this process the
work. Its the same people every time doing the work .
There may be other questions you may want to ask. Please do...
Very importantly, HOW can we more effectively evaluate performance - what do you use in your workplace?
Let me know.. I'd love to hear from you.
Maureen _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
--
Thanks
Ali AlMeshal
Bahrain Internet Society - BIS
Board Member & Director of Strategic Alliances
Professional Public speaker in ICT and e-Business
Payment Industry Expert Advisor
Mobile: +973 39440025
Skype: alialmeshal
email: dralialmeshal@gmail.com
ali.almeshal@bis.org.bh
www.bis.org.bh <http://www.bis.org.bh/>
Twitter :@internetBH
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
-- CAUTION: PLEASE READ OUR "TERMS OF USE" BEFORE RELYING UPON ANY ADVISE TENDERED HEREIN. NOTE THE ADVISE GIVEN HEREIN SHALL NOT BE ADMISSIBLE IN ANY COURT OF LAW IN INDIA OR ABROAD AND IS MERELY IN THE NATURE OF A PERSONAL OPINION AND DONOT HAVE ANY STATUTORY VALUE. _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
Fouad On the matter of the specifics of Individual Membership in RALO's... This is of course a clearly identified OBJECTIVE for all RALO's since its identification as a recommendation fron the ALAC Review, and is NOT an idea dismissed by any RALO I trust as it "just has to happen where it has not already".... That said this issue has been identified as one of several amendment to Rules matters for the current APRALO Rules Review, so resending your "paperwork on policy reform in the APRALO articles" to that RALO WG will be verynvaluable indeed... thanks Regarding your comment on "silence" etc., from an APRALO POV =>hmmm as a serving Leader of the RALO (you are a Vice Chair after all) YOU are, I would have thought one perfectly positioned to ensure this does not/did not happen... However PLEASE bring this up when you next attend one of the APRALO Meetings... It is a matter that clearly needs addressing... On Nov 29, 2013 3:17 AM, "Fouad Bajwa" <fouadbajwa@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe one of the most important metrics component should be built on the fact that if a member suggests something, how many of those suggestions were actually accepted and incorporated into the system.
One small example is that I've proposed individual membership in the past during 2010, created the paperwork suggesting the policy reform in the APRALO articles, presented it and then silence. This would have enhanced participation, inclusion of more productive talent and people that are sensitive about ICANN and IG related issues. Such talent thus has to move under a narrower scope into the ncuc/ncsg and APRALO loses out.
Somehow the belief that only groups can represent the rights of the users is a fantasy. For example, in the technical community and most in ISOC circles, most of the members in a recognized ALS are not actually CS or information rights activists but people with corporate day jobs and of companies that actually should fall under contracted parties ac/oc's in ICANN.
The value that comes into such an organizational system are actually the members, the system itself cannot come up with ideas and transform the ideas into workable actions.
Participation collapses when member ideas are not viewed as valuable input and organizations that don't believe in agility to change and adapt to round the clock innovation and improvements basically fall short on rationality for existence and support in the future.
If the participation in meetings and tele-cons are an evaluative criteria for calculating value for money, something is seriously wrong with ICANN and the people who are attempting to address such issues by adopting such a weak and lame course of action.
KPIs are measured against activities and participation in telecons and meetings are not such an input or expected outcome.
The indicators can be established on a the basis of number of members present and number of comments, suggestions and recommendations received during any calls/meetings and the actions were taken on them. The second level would be number of policy comments requested by ICANN and the number of members that voted on them, the time taken to make comments or recommendations, total number of policy requests for comments and number of comments made to policy requests.
Its actually a very simple and straightforward thing. List down all the things that ALAC and its members do. Against those activities a scorecard can be developed and benchmarked against other AC/OC work.
I'll think more about this.
Hello everyone.
I like Ali's input on metrics about leadership of Working Groups for ALAC members. I would also suggest co-chairing of WG between an ALAC Member and an At-Large community member. This will help build collaborative skills and capacity along the way.
Best regards,
Rinalia On Nov 27, 2013 11:17 PM, "Maureen Hilyard" <hilyard@oyster.net.ck> wrote:
Thank you Ali. This breadth of feedback is very much appreciated.
Maureen
From: Ali AlMeshal [mailto:dralialmeshal@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 27 November 2013 12:45 a.m. To: Maureen Hilyard Cc: Karaitiana Taiuru; APRALO; METRICS Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
Good day Maureen,
First of all we have always to but in mind as your correctly stated
this is a volunteer work from the members, but on the other hand I do agree that up to certain extent there should be a fair KPI’s in place to evaluate the performance of ALAC members.
Also I am quite sure that selected or nominated ALAC members for these leadership positions were based on their knowledge , commitment and experience as well as high performance otherwise they will not be part of the team.
Hence measuring criteria would always be much clearer and effective if it is set for Quantitative factors rather than Qualitative once.
So having said that then I would like to address the following:
o Attending meetings by it self is not a goal or objective therefore it can not be part of the measuring criteria independently.
o Also participation and contribution to the meeting discussion can not be evaluated as a performance measure
Thereafter to have a process in place that gives an indication of the member performance I would suggest the following
o ALAC members should be assigned to Chair a WG’s
§ With this type of assignment the member will logically be accountable and responsible of a set deliverables that he/she have to achieve, and this can be measured and evaluated for the following set of KPI’s
· Time to deliver
· Commitment
· Team working
· Developing others (member of the group)
· Others
o ALAC members and chair of RALO’s jointly should be responsible for engaging the ALS’s in work and activities related to the rejoin at least and should provide a monthly call report on this.
§ This is different activity from the RALO monthly call; this should be done separately to reach out the ALS’s through a pre-plan agenda and time frame.
§ The objective is to get in touch with ALS’s members outside the official call and tries to understand their needs and requirements and also will be a good tool maybe to get them engage in if they are not active. So this is more of OUTREACH on a small scale and more of direct communication.
Should you need any clarification then please let me know by email or a call, I will be more than happy to discuss.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Maureen Hilyard <hilyard@oyster.net.ck
wrote:
Thank you KT for your comments and suggestions. These are all very helpful.
Regards Maureen
-----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of
Karaitiana Taiuru Sent: Monday, 25 November 2013 12:12 p.m. To: 'APRALO' Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
These are my thoughts based on not been an ALAC member (nor do I have time to).
I would support a more closer monitoring approach to the ALAC
review and would like to see the evaluations distributed to the relevant RALO's as we are the ones who nominate and put our trust in our representatives to provide our views and then to report back to us.
I would expect that participation in all meetings, emails and Work Groups would be at the very minimum 90%. There are so many issues at present it would be hard not to have a voice at a meeting.
Saying this, I would also expect that any new ALAC appointments are mentored and giving an appropriate transition period and were made to feel comfortable to ask for help. Some cultural and language barriers may also exist and should be considered.
If people are under-performing, then perhaps a mechanism of someone talking to them in a non threating manner to see if there is any assistance required etc.
Perhaps too, some way of recognition for the long hours and dedication may also be a motivation. This is likely to be more of a RALO initiative though.
-----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maureen Hilyard Sent: Sunday, 24 November 2013 5:52 p.m. To: APRALO Subject: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS
APRALO colleagues
As Siranush had informed you already, I am on a working group (headed by Cheryl Langdon-Orr) that is looking at measuring the performance of ALAC members (as expected in the ALAC Rules of Procedure). We are later to be looking at ALSes and RALOs.
It is an extremely difficult thing to do when: * the people in these positions are volunteers who have offered to do
work out of the goodness of their hearts - how do you measure their contribution to a task that has been set? * the Board and Management are becoming more vocal about getting value for money spent within the system - it costs a lot of money to bring the committees of the ICANN system together for each meeting. three times a year. They rightfully want to know that they are getting their money's worth. * it is very difficult to ascertain what METRICS are appropriate to measure each particular type of performance (attendance? contribution? value of contribution? others?)
As ALSes you elect your APRALO representatives on the ALAC (me and Holly) and although Raf has been appointed to the ALAC as and APRALO NOMCOM candidate - the expectations should be the same.
Therefore I'd really like to hear not only about WHAT performance criteria should be evaluated but also HOW it might be appropriately measured. I would like to use the advice of the ALSes to put together an evaluative
which could help us evaluate all the groups we have been tasked to evaluate.
This is what we are looking at, at the moment:
1. Do ALAC members attend all the meetings they should? Some attend the face to face meetings, but not the online meetings. ICANN is not looking at these candidates very favourably.
2. Do ALAC members who attend the meetings actually contribute anything to the meetings? Some attend meetings but they don't say anything - what value do they give? Some log into teleconference meetings, but because they don't contribute anything, it is difficult to know whether they actually listening?)
3. Do ALAC members participate on working groups? We have lots of members who volunteer for a working group, and never turn up for meetings to do
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote: that performance this process the
work. Its the same people every time doing the work .
There may be other questions you may want to ask. Please do...
Very importantly, HOW can we more effectively evaluate performance - what do you use in your workplace?
Let me know.. I'd love to hear from you.
Maureen _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
--
Thanks
Ali AlMeshal
Bahrain Internet Society - BIS
Board Member & Director of Strategic Alliances
Professional Public speaker in ICT and e-Business
Payment Industry Expert Advisor
Mobile: +973 39440025
Skype: alialmeshal
email: dralialmeshal@gmail.com
ali.almeshal@bis.org.bh
www.bis.org.bh <http://www.bis.org.bh/>
Twitter :@internetBH
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
_______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
-- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org
participants (10)
-
Ali AlMeshal -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Fouad Bajwa -
Jurisonline in -
Karaitiana Taiuru -
Maureen Hilyard -
Maureen Hilyard -
Rinalia Abdul Rahim -
Satish Babu -
Winthrop Yu