I agree with the general principles.
Jacqueline
[[--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