Re: [At-Large] Proposal: Rotating Chair for ALAC
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
I agree that 3-5 months is waay too short - it takes almost that long for emails to be redirected to the correct person (unless we create an alacchair@icann.org email account that resolves to the current person.) The Chair's job isn't that onerous, except at ICANN meetings, and only if the Chair is expected to chair every meeting and attend every panel. It will be even easier when we set up the subcommittees and stop doing everything as a committee of the whole. I agree with Alan's suggestions made a while ago, and already partially implemented by the formation of the working groups and adhoc subcommittees. We really should finalise the standing subcommittees (see proposal of mine sent earlier today) and then take a look at how it works. At present, the only working subcommittee is the budget one. We had a website subcommittee - not sure who's on it now. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 9:53 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Proposal: Rotating Chair for ALAC 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.1/888 - Release Date: 7/6/2007 6:36 AM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.1/888 - Release Date: 7/6/2007 6:36 AM
This is being proposed (and makes sense) on the grounds that the role of the Chair is a lot of work. (So I assume that point is agreed). "Willingness to serve" that role would likely be different once the parameters are configured differently - length of time is shorter... and the expectations of service are clear up front - a greater portion of the committee being expected to serve in that role (with more back-up on the several tasks). If there is interest from several quarters that "chair's responsibilities be somewhat divided", getting clear on that up front makes more sense. It appears a non sequitor to say that "once things are working well" such a change would come under consideration. If things get to the point of working well, count your blessings. Length of service - "too short/too long" sounds like the wrong frame in which to approach this. If understood as shared responsibility of the committee, rotation of the role has a number of benefits. Structure, to the extent we need it, should reflect our values, and should not be imitative of those we find elsewhere. On 7/8/07, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
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
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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
With respect to this proposal, perhaps as the staff I could comment on the idea from the perspective of administrative overhead, and also perception outside the community: Firstly, if the chair changes that often, you will have to have some way to select between the three regional representatives where more than one of them is willing to serve. This means more elections. Elections cause a fair amount of administrative overhead, and generally involve campaigning, lobbying others for votes, etc. This takes away time from policy discussions and other substantive work. Secondly, as everyone is well aware, after spending years in procedural discussions and forming RALOs, those stakeholders outside of At-Large are very much looking to see how much policy work the community does. Having just finished forming all the structures, do you think that those outside of At-Large will see it as a good sign that you are turning immediately to desiging more administrative processes which involve elections? On 9 Jul 2007, at 02:52, Alan Greenberg wrote:
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
My proposal didn't envision elections. Only three people are involved, so public campaigning, lobbying, and voting won't happen. If three reasonable people of good will can't agree, then they can go into a closet and do rock-paper-scissors until a winner emerges. Or they can share the Chair. Personally, I don't agree that the ALAC needs a single face, a single voice, a single person as a point of contact. Yes, we probably need a single email address -- ALAC-Chair@icann.org or something -- but the recipients of that email address should be the rotating Executive Committee, not one person. I think we will benefit, both functionally and in the eyes of the community, from being an organization with many voices, many faces, and both a real and perceived ability to work together in a relatively flat organizational structure that doesn't elevate any one person above the others. Bret On Jul 9, 2007, at 8:32 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
With respect to this proposal, perhaps as the staff I could comment on the idea from the perspective of administrative overhead, and also perception outside the community:
Firstly, if the chair changes that often, you will have to have some way to select between the three regional representatives where more than one of them is willing to serve. This means more elections. Elections cause a fair amount of administrative overhead, and generally involve campaigning, lobbying others for votes, etc. This takes away time from policy discussions and other substantive work.
Secondly, as everyone is well aware, after spending years in procedural discussions and forming RALOs, those stakeholders outside of At-Large are very much looking to see how much policy work the community does. Having just finished forming all the structures, do you think that those outside of At-Large will see it as a good sign that you are turning immediately to desiging more administrative processes which involve elections?
Well said! On 7/9/07, Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro> wrote:
My proposal didn't envision elections. Only three people are involved, so public campaigning, lobbying, and voting won't happen. If three reasonable people of good will can't agree, then they can go into a closet and do rock-paper-scissors until a winner emerges. Or they can share the Chair.
Personally, I don't agree that the ALAC needs a single face, a single voice, a single person as a point of contact. Yes, we probably need a single email address -- ALAC-Chair@icann.org or something -- but the recipients of that email address should be the rotating Executive Committee, not one person. I think we will benefit, both functionally and in the eyes of the community, from being an organization with many voices, many faces, and both a real and perceived ability to work together in a relatively flat organizational structure that doesn't elevate any one person above the others.
Bret
On Jul 9, 2007, at 8:32 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
With respect to this proposal, perhaps as the staff I could comment on the idea from the perspective of administrative overhead, and also perception outside the community:
Firstly, if the chair changes that often, you will have to have some way to select between the three regional representatives where more than one of them is willing to serve. This means more elections. Elections cause a fair amount of administrative overhead, and generally involve campaigning, lobbying others for votes, etc. This takes away time from policy discussions and other substantive work.
Secondly, as everyone is well aware, after spending years in procedural discussions and forming RALOs, those stakeholders outside of At-Large are very much looking to see how much policy work the community does. Having just finished forming all the structures, do you think that those outside of At-Large will see it as a good sign that you are turning immediately to desiging more administrative processes which involve elections?
_______________________________________________ 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
Bret, an election for the Chair of ALAC isn't optional - see the ICANN Bylaws, Article XI,S2(4)(d): "The Chair of the ALAC shall be elected by the members of the ALAC pursuant to procedures adopted by the Committee." If the objective you seek is that more than one face is 'seen', that could certainly be achieved by having one of the ALAC from the region act as the spokesperson for the community at the ICANN meetings - at public fora, etc - without requiring multiple annual elections of the chair... On 9 Jul 2007, at 17:00, Bret Fausett wrote:
My proposal didn't envision elections. Only three people are involved, so public campaigning, lobbying, and voting won't happen. If three reasonable people of good will can't agree, then they can go into a closet and do rock-paper-scissors until a winner emerges. Or they can share the Chair.
Personally, I don't agree that the ALAC needs a single face, a single voice, a single person as a point of contact. Yes, we probably need a single email address -- ALAC-Chair@icann.org or something -- but the recipients of that email address should be the rotating Executive Committee, not one person. I think we will benefit, both functionally and in the eyes of the community, from being an organization with many voices, many faces, and both a real and perceived ability to work together in a relatively flat organizational structure that doesn't elevate any one person above the others.
Bret
On Jul 9, 2007, at 8:32 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
With respect to this proposal, perhaps as the staff I could comment on the idea from the perspective of administrative overhead, and also perception outside the community:
Firstly, if the chair changes that often, you will have to have some way to select between the three regional representatives where more than one of them is willing to serve. This means more elections. Elections cause a fair amount of administrative overhead, and generally involve campaigning, lobbying others for votes, etc. This takes away time from policy discussions and other substantive work.
Secondly, as everyone is well aware, after spending years in procedural discussions and forming RALOs, those stakeholders outside of At-Large are very much looking to see how much policy work the community does. Having just finished forming all the structures, do you think that those outside of At-Large will see it as a good sign that you are turning immediately to desiging more administrative processes which involve elections?
_______________________________________________ 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
Nick, thanks for point out the bylaw provision, but it doesn't change anything. The "procedure adopted by the Committee" would be that the three representatives from the host region elect a Chair. On Jul 9, 2007, at 11:01 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Bret, an election for the Chair of ALAC isn't optional - see the ICANN Bylaws, Article XI,S2(4)(d):
"The Chair of the ALAC shall be elected by the members of the ALAC pursuant to procedures adopted by the Committee."
I doubt - very much - that the General Counsel would agree that 3 people out of 15 electing a chair every few months is in conformity with the Bylaws - quite the contrary. If the Committee decides to go with this type of structure I will of course ask. On 9 Jul 2007, at 19:15, Bret Fausett wrote:
Nick, thanks for point out the bylaw provision, but it doesn't change anything. The "procedure adopted by the Committee" would be that the three representatives from the host region elect a Chair.
On Jul 9, 2007, at 11:01 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Bret, an election for the Chair of ALAC isn't optional - see the ICANN Bylaws, Article XI,S2(4)(d):
"The Chair of the ALAC shall be elected by the members of the ALAC pursuant to procedures adopted by the Committee."
_______________________________________________ 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
I think you're wrong about the likely legal advice, since the same bylaw provision delegates to the ALAC itself substantial discretion in how how the election takes place. If you really need all 15 "electing," we would simply adopt a procedure by which ALAC members gave their proxies to the people from the host region. At the end of the day, the ALAC can decide how and when it wants to select its Chair, and that bylaw provision can't prevent that. And why should it? I think the clear intent of the provision is to give us substantial latitude in the internal governance of the ALAC. On Jul 9, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
I doubt - very much - that the General Counsel would agree that 3 people out of 15 electing a chair every few months is in conformity with the Bylaws - quite the contrary.
If the Committee decides to go with this type of structure I will of course ask.
On 9 Jul 2007, at 19:15, Bret Fausett wrote:
Nick, thanks for point out the bylaw provision, but it doesn't change anything. The "procedure adopted by the Committee" would be that the three representatives from the host region elect a Chair.
On Jul 9, 2007, at 11:01 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Bret, an election for the Chair of ALAC isn't optional - see the ICANN Bylaws, Article XI,S2(4)(d):
"The Chair of the ALAC shall be elected by the members of the ALAC pursuant to procedures adopted by the Committee."
_______________________________________________ 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
I do not enter in this debate, but it would surely be nice to align the Bylaws with the current practice, and not rely on the fact that members give their proxies to the people from a certain region. Moreover, this would not guarantee neither that at the moment of the vote members will give the proxy, nor that the members of the region vote for one of them and not for somebody else. So, if ALAC chooses to have a musical Chair (sorry - it was too tempting), better put it in the Bylaws rather than finding shortcuts to achieve the goal. Personally, seeing things from the outside, I am not excited about the hypothesis. I think that ALAC will lose credibility by continuously changing chairperson. For sure, it will solve some practical issues, and share the burden, but I would invite you to think thoroughly of the consequences. Just an example: what would you think if ICANN would apply the same principle, and rotate Board Chair every few months? Without doubt, to have a chair originated in the region where the meeting is held would give a PR advantage, but what I doubt is that the overall image of ICANN would be strengthened. Up to you to balance the pros and cons. Cheers, Roberto _____ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: 09 July 2007 20:56 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Proposal: Rotating Chair for ALAC I think you're wrong about the likely legal advice, since the same bylaw provision delegates to the ALAC itself substantial discretion in how how the election takes place. If you really need all 15 "electing," we would simply adopt a procedure by which ALAC members gave their proxies to the people from the host region. At the end of the day, the ALAC can decide how and when it wants to select its Chair, and that bylaw provision can't prevent that. And why should it? I think the clear intent of the provision is to give us substantial latitude in the internal governance of the ALAC. On Jul 9, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: I doubt - very much - that the General Counsel would agree that 3 people out of 15 electing a chair every few months is in conformity with the Bylaws - quite the contrary. If the Committee decides to go with this type of structure I will of course ask. On 9 Jul 2007, at 19:15, Bret Fausett wrote: Nick, thanks for point out the bylaw provision, but it doesn't change anything. The "procedure adopted by the Committee" would be that the three representatives from the host region elect a Chair. On Jul 9, 2007, at 11:01 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: Bret, an election for the Chair of ALAC isn't optional - see the ICANN Bylaws, Article XI,S2(4)(d): "The Chair of the ALAC shall be elected by the members of the ALAC pursuant to procedures adopted by the Committee." _______________________________________________ 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
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
Annette, I am not sure I know what you mean (but it could be lack of sleep). Do you mean that there will be an annual chair, but a three-person "management team" including the chair, rep from last meeting region and rep from next meeting region? Alan At 10/07/2007 09:00 AM, Annette Muehlberg wrote:
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
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
participants (8)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Annette Muehlberg -
Bret Fausett -
Izumi AIZU -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Michael Maranda -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Roberto Gaetano