I agree with Alan and Izumi, largely for practical reasons. Speaking from very recent experience, newcomers to ICANN and At-Large need to feel a sense of continuity and stability. They need someone to consistently identify with in order to feel comfortable asking questions and participating fully and effectively. This is critical at the meetings, but also for the discussions online and elsewhere. Should the number of ALSs increase, as is hoped for, the need for experienced guides and "sure hands" will increase. I think Annette's proposal has a great deal of merit. Instead of a rotating chair, have two or three people from the region where the next meeting is hosted take a visible role in organizing and planning -- with assistance from the previous two or three from the last meeting. Again, speaking as a newcomer having experienced the first meeting, I would argue against anything that imposes more bureaucracy and confers political structures where they're not needed. I was struck by the difference between how the NCUC seems to operate and how At-Large seems to operate in this regard. Regards, Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Maranda Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 9:52 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] Proposal: Rotating Chair for ALAC/Rotating Location forMeetings Granted, the location for ICANN meetings is not in our (At Large) control... I would say one or two things on the rotation of chair: fairness is perhaps less the issue than reasonably being able to work together better/more effectively. This is not to say that these proposals will achieve that, but is intended as a commentary on the criteria for decision. "Fairness" can lead to divisiveness... as in "we didnt get exactly what you got"... We would do much better to frame things from "reasonable rotation" for the cause of the work to be undertaken and distributed. Much has been made of diminished (symbolic) credibility of a rotating chair. We should instead emphasise At Large being able to speak with consensus (when such consensus exists) or legitimacy as a body as a whole. That is more impressive to me than "stability of chair" ... couching the argument in such a way as to suggest this means we are less stable or would be taken as less stable and credible is very much mistaken and representative of subjective view, and signals bias towards the status quo. Going back to the rotation of meetings, we have been told by staff that it is impossible to justify support for regional ALS travel to two meetings in a row (San Juan and LA). As Izumi mentions, there will not be another meeting in NA region for a lengthy interval. This change in the rotation of locations is to the convenience of ICANN, not to us in At Large. We have received contradictory statements from different sources on this matter regarding whether we will be able to convene NA at LA. As an individual representing but one ALS in NA RALO, and not speaking for the RALO as a whole, I am very interested in what is understood by folks in other regions on this matter. Fairness extends not just to chairing of this body, it extends to what is supported in the various regions. Also, the cause of any unfairness may not be from within At Large itself. On 7/10/07, Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org> wrote: I am not still convinced at all by idea of Rotating Chair, for practical reasons. I see some (past) Chairs have difficulty in conducting the ALAC sessions at their first ICANN meetings, improved later - at second or third meetings. If a new Chair comes in and go with three to five months, where do these lessons learned go? To the next Chair? Hard to believe. So every time ALAC may suffer from the inexperienced new leadership at its very important and expensive physical meetings. This year, the meeting venue rotatin was sort of broken. As you know, Asia Pacific region was scheduled to host its ICANN meeting in October, but due to politics and other reasons, they could not find ANY venue/host and decided to move to LA for October meeting, and put AP region for February. What is things like this happen again? How could we insure the fair rotation? Have you seen the actual schedule of ICANN meeting from now till 2010? According to this list, North America will host ICANN LA meeting this October, and the next meeting they will host is October 2010 - three years ahead! From 2008, the order will be: AP, Eu, Af, LAC, AP, EU, AF, LAC, then NA. In theory, rotating chair looks attractive, but in practice, it will be very troublesome. Thanks, izumi 2007/7/10, Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg@web.de>: > All, > I propose a different concept of rotating chairs. Instead of the EU > rotating model, I think the following would be more effective and > certainly less bureaucratic: > > After each ICANN meeting those three representatives of the ALAC of the > region where the next meeting will take place take the lead. One of the > old team will join their work (to make sure that "old" issues do not get > lost) and of course the regional secretariat will share responsibilities > especially in preparing the next meeting. > > best > annette > > > Alan Greenberg schrieb: > > Although I like the idea conceptually, I am dubious how successful it > > would be. My intuition tells me that the Chair job is a lot of work. > > Just because a meeting will be in a specific region does not mean > > that one of the three regional people (or less if terms are up) will > > be willing to devote the time to do it, or capable of taking on the > > tasks (that is not meant as a negative comment - I *know* what my > > strengths are and where my interests lie, and I presume others do as > > well). Perhaps once things are working well and on a regular basis > > within the ALAC, it would be time for such a change. In my mind, > > today is not that day. > > > > However, similar to the issue that Izumi raised, I proposed several > > months ago that the chair's responsibilities be somewhat divided. > > Specifically I suggested that there be several vice chairs and that > > for any given task (agenda's, intra-ICANN coordination, etc) that > > either the Chair be the lead person and one of the vice-chairs backs > > them up, or vice versa. This would spread the work around a bit more, > > play to people's strengths, and ensure backup for all responsibilities. > > > > I also agree with Izumi about term. 3-4 months is too short to really > > get the feel of the job (and too long if the wrong person is selected!). > > > > Alan > > > > At 08/07/2007 09:30 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > >> I am rather conservative on this idea of rotating chair. > >> > >> I think we should first define/agree on the division of labor of the > >> whole committee's works, who is going to work on which areas. > >> > >> After that, we can agree on how much the Chair should > >> do, either with the current model, or with the proposed > >> rotating Chair model. > >> > >> In case we adopt to the rotation, perhaps the term may be > >> longer than one meeting. I think 3 to 5 months are too short to > >> become effective. > >> > >> izumi > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org > > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org *** Scanned