Dear Olivier: I truly understand your perspective and even acknowledge that the 'fer-instance' you record, admittedly an extreme case, is possible.....and troubling. But I am convinced that "sanctions" talk is the wrong mindset to address this. Persons are appointed for a period. That period can be adjusted by design and in context of the appointive process. That the least of it though. When it comes to elected members, elections have a particular objective in our at-large context; it presages the 'bottom up' process to which names and numbers policy making is said to be committed. Persons are elected for a period. History absolves me; everyone knows that I am aware electorates can, in fact, return 'unsuitable' persons. However, because we must pay more than lip service to this 'bottom up' ideal, the ALAC cannot adopt such a cavalier attitude to the rejection of that quintessential 'bottom up' action that nullification of that election will message. Then there are the 'unintended consequences' one can anticipate. I have consistently cautioned against this talk of 'sanctions', even when well-respected colleagues have privately sought my views in circumstances where ALAC members are judged to be 'lifting light' in ALAC work. I feel equally strong that as this mindset remains with life and stalks the framework, it is bad for our business. So consistent with my own views and intuit, I shall oppose. Best, Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
Carlton,
On 11/10/2011 15:49, Carlton Samuels wrote :
As I have already stated, I cannot vote for any report that recommends "sanctions" on volunteers, even if they are yet to be determined. The state of mind that delivers this gem can only be repudiated for cause.
Take imaginary example candidate A, ALAC member, does not attend calls, does not attend meetings, or when he travels, uses their time outside of the ALAC room. A does not get involved in ALAC & other working groups. A is basically using their affiliation to ALAC as something that looks good on their CV. Admittedly, this is an extreme, but Carlton, at the moment, nothing can be done about that person, and that imaginary person is occupying a seat on the ALAC, one of the only 15 seats of people supposed to act in the best interests of the 2.1Bn Internet users out there. That person is failing those 2.1Bn people. That person is not accountable.
Yes, that person is a volunteer, but when you volunteer for ALAC, you're not doing it as a piece of fun. There is a deep responsibility that goes along with that. There is accountability to users in the rest of the world.
But in any case, this debate is premature. We're at an intermediate stage, with more than 50 recommendations in this report, some of which are completed, some of which need to be taken to the next stage. The debate on sanctions/no sanctions will happen later. (and in Dakar we have a session on metric which might touch on that... or we might have to wait until after Dakar. In any case, there will be plenty of times to debate this)
Warmest regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html