I agree with the general principles. Jacqueline On 24 Jun 2015 12:58, <apisanty@gmail.com> wrote:
[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
Subject: = utf-8 b TcOpdHJpY2Fz =???? From: apisanty@gmail.com
Colleagues,
today at the monthly meeting face (f2) we held a brief discussion on metrics.
Subject to this discussion back to his place in a working group, I think it is worth to make clear what the objective metrics. This It is well understood in the community, and those who say they do not They made by self-interest to distort the discussion.
What we need we are accountability and transparency between us thereof. Individuals and organizations working activametne be identified. Organizations and individuals that do not contribute They involved to decide whether they will participate or no longer counted. And there an intermediate strip of organizations and representatives who are difficult to participate but have the will to do so.Among these there Many types of situations: a representative who is sick or has to spend time with family or work that sustains; changing directive or mandate; and many more circumstances.
A good metric system would be simple, transparent, predictable, and difficult to counterfeit. Would make a "triage", ie would rather obvious 5-10 which are regularly participating organizations and They contribute 20 which are practically abandoned, and a strip intermediate 10 or 15 with which we must work in hopes that recover their participation or leave the organization voluntarily or by way of decertification. This assumes renewal cycles certifications, we must institute.
There is a classification of units that can help us further in this process:
1. Regular and consistent participation in all activities, and contribution to substantive policy issues.His proposals are LACRALO incorporated into resolutions and have impact on policy ALAC and ICANN.
2. sporadic participation and / or devoted to procedural matters Reglaments, formats agreements but not their contents, etc.
3. sporadic appearances, little focus, and fundamentally leading to "make presence" for elections and selection processes for participation in events, especially if they involve support for travel.
Our observation or measurement of participation of organizations should favor the type 1, type 3 disadvantage, and encourage those who make appearances type 2 pass to level 1.
If we can have agreement around these principles, the Working Group Governance Metrics and only have to produce a good implementation and their work will be more reliable, predictable and achievable.
Is there any disagreement with these general principles?
Alejandro Pisanty
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM Faculty of Chemistry 3000 University Avenue,. 04510 Mexico DF Mexico + 52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD SMS FROM MEXICO +525541444475 +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty UNAM Join the LinkedIn group, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---- >> Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[[--Original text (es) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/22a894d8ba.html --]]
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en