Re: [lac-discuss-en] [ALAC] Some thoughts on ALS Criteria & Expectations Taskforce
Carlton, I think that there are three distinct categories of people here, and we are merging them together. 1. There are the dedicated hard workers for whom the travel may or may not be a "perk" at some level. I put you and me in that category. I have logged close to 2 million flying miles (that is, actual flown miles, not frequent flyer miles), and to quote an old song I am fond of "The thrill is a long time gone". I find it hard to consider a trip half-way across the world, where I may get 6 hours sleep, put in a grueling 7-10 days, and fly out again without seeing anything other than a hotel, perhaps 1 or 2 restaurants and the airport a perk or reward. On the other hand, on rare occasions, I do tag some vacation onto an ICANN trip and from that perspective, it does add a bit of a personal benefit - generally giving me an opportunity to see a place that I might not have done on my own. 2. There are volunteers who are not among among our heavy lifters (really dedicated workers), but want to get involved. They are the ones that our GAs and summits should be targeted at. They are at the meetings to learn, and try to stay involved after. 3. The latter ones come to meetings, perhaps attend some meetings, enjoy the local offerings, and go home and forget about us until the next trip. THOSE are the ones that I have a real problem with. Of course, there are also some who straddle several categories. BUt when they go into option 3, I have a problem. Alan At 07/08/2015 01:55 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
I participated in this morning's call and wanted to level the playing field by enunciating some principles and a framework for our discussions.
Let's start with some principles.
1) The At-Large is a volunteer-led and fueled organisation and whatever we do MUST be informed by unassailable facts we know of voluntary organisations plus the psychology of voluntarism.
2) Individuals make the worthwhile contributions, not organisations.
3) There is a wide range of motivations for voluntarily contributing and these must be fed for sustaining worthwhile contributions
4) Results matter but volunteer contributions across the board shall always be uneven
So now, the framework for discussions. There are structural issues as well as political issues that must be embraced for any viable solution to emerge. The ICANN/RALO MOU is the source of the first structurally-generated challenge.
While it recognizes individuals as the providers of policy advice, it locates individual actions in organisations called ALS. And by so doing suggests that value be given to the organisation. Some RALOs, like NARALO, have developed rules that recognize individual contributions but have shoehorned valuation for contribution into an ALS structure. I'm not now sure what the answer should be but I know what we now have is not fit to purpose and objective.
Another structural issue. An individual coming to the ICANN policy development ecosystem is going to become a worthwhile contributor by virtue of mental acumen, penchant for hard work and time in place. Time in place is the common criteria for success. So current arrangements give extra value to experienced volunteers.
At the same time, new blood is required to sustain the flow of worthwhile contributors. Here's the thing. Face-to-Face (f2f) ICANN meetings are the best platforms to learn and to become familiarized with this complex beast called the ICANN ecosystem.
The effectiveness of a volunteer in policy development is directly related to serial opportunity to participate in ICANN f2f meetings. It is no accident that the most impactful groups in ICANN are a) those that get to f2f meetings as 'volunteers' engaged in compensated work b) Those who have the wherewithal to self-fund attendance at ICANN f2f meetings.
The task is to develop a framework that strikes a balance which takes into account the need for experienced volunteers with capacity to deliver worthwhile contributions even as we build capacity in newer less-experienced volunteers to sustain the At-Large participation agenda.
The current funding model for attendance of At-Large volunteers to ICANN f2f meetings assist ALAC representatives, liaisons from ALAC to qualified SOs/ACs plus named RALO leadership. This construct seemingly presumes a direct line of inheritance from RALO leadership thru ALAC representation. We know it is a presumption without merit, especially if worthwhile contributions to policy discussions is the objective for the At-Large in ICANN.
It is always wrong to think of travel funding to ICANN f2f meeting as a benefit to a volunteer! It is not and cannot be!
ALAC representation compels attending three (3) f2f meetings per annum. They are coincident with the ICANN meetings. In this context, travel funding is purely part of the infrastructural cost to fulfill an obligation. Otherwise it is like working for a company that has business far removed from my place of domicile and expect performance without provisioning the tools that enable that performance.
It rankles me personally when my contributions in both time and treasure to the ICANN enterprise is neither accounted or valorized. Then insult is added to my injury when some goof equates a trip sitting in steerage for upwards of 17+ hours [the flight time from Chicago to New Delhi] as a benefit!
I travel by air a lot for work; the miles are now counted in millions. In the years I sat as an ALAC member + the incumbent Secretariat for LACRALO and as a senior staffer at The University of the West Indies, I contributed my vacation time of 3 weeks to ICANN for attending f2f meetings. This does not count the average 20+ hours per week I normally dedicate to ICANN matters. Nor my personal spend of a minimum of US$500 to attend said meetings! These all contribute to ICANN having a real opportunity to record it is indeed multi-stakeholder, is fulfilling its AoC obligations and has contributions from end user representatives to its policy development.
Back in time, I was roundly criticised by some of my At-Large colleagues for my position in dealing with so-called ALAC 'tourists'. This matter came to the top in India; LACRALO representatives to ALAC were accused of abandoning ALAC business for a tour of Indian tourist sites. This still haunts the At-Large in ICANN circles. My firm stand against any sanctions or additional criteria applied for travel support funding was interpreted as 'protecting' the members accused from sanctions for inattention to duty. That was never my objective and it still is not the case today. I just cannot accept the notion that travel funding is a benefit to the volunteer. I shall, on principle, oppose any such notion, howsoever derived or configured.
Finally, in the chat we heard talk of a 'reviewer' being appointed. While the roles and responsibilities of such a person/actor is not yet outlined, let us be clear to ring fence and give specific instructions as to what we are trying to achieve here. We must recognize from principles that volunteers give as much as they can to the cause. The contributions in time and treasure of a Olivier Crepin-Leblond or Cheryl Langdon Orr cannot be used as a benchmark for either engagement or indeed, worthwhile contributions.
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Dear Alan, agreed on all your other points. On 08/08/2015 00:58, Alan Greenberg wrote:
3. The latter ones come to meetings, perhaps attend some meetings, enjoy the local offerings, and go home and forget about us until the next trip. THOSE are the ones that I have a real problem with.
And unfortunately whenever the time comes for having face to face meetings, we treat those people the same way as we treat the people who genuinely want to get involved. It is impossible to build a relationship with people who do not make the effort to keep involved in between face to face meetingsMy argument is that we should identify people who have a genuine interest in helping out and facilitate their involvement in face to face meetings, more often than at GAs every 5 years. So far, what I have done is to give excellent references to people applying for the fellowship program and whom I judge to be of real potential. But that's not enough since the program is only available for developing nations. This is why I would favour the ability for the ALAC to invite people from their ALSes to an ICANN meeting, based on a skill requirement. For example, the hot topic is about WHOIS, let's invite people whom we know to be privacy experts. The hot topic is about ICANN Accountability - let's invite people who run an ALS that has a need to impeccable accountability. etc. Kind regards, Olivier
Note should have been "last" not "latter". I think this is out of scope for the ALS criteria TF, but is 100% in scope for the Outreach and Engagement SC. How we populate the list of people who we fund for travel to ICANN meetings is completely up to us (as long as it is reasonably well justified and implemented fairly. Skill, commitment or whatever is fair game. Alan At 08/08/2015 03:37 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Alan,
agreed on all your other points.
On 08/08/2015 00:58, Alan Greenberg wrote:
3. The latter ones come to meetings, perhaps attend some meetings, enjoy the local offerings, and go home and forget about us until the next trip. THOSE are the ones that I have a real problem with.
And unfortunately whenever the time comes for having face to face meetings, we treat those people the same way as we treat the people who genuinely want to get involved. It is impossible to build a relationship with people who do not make the effort to keep involved in between face to face meetingsMy argument is that we should identify people who have a genuine interest in helping out and facilitate their involvement in face to face meetings, more often than at GAs every 5 years. So far, what I have done is to give excellent references to people applying for the fellowship program and whom I judge to be of real potential. But that's not enough since the program is only available for developing nations. This is why I would favour the ability for the ALAC to invite people from their ALSes to an ICANN meeting, based on a skill requirement. For example, the hot topic is about WHOIS, let's invite people whom we know to be privacy experts. The hot topic is about ICANN Accountability - let's invite people who run an ALS that has a need to impeccable accountability. etc.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 8 August 2015 at 09:37, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
3. The latter ones come to meetings, perhaps attend some meetings, enjoy the local offerings, and go home and forget about us until the next trip. THOSE are the ones that I have a real problem with.
And unfortunately whenever the time comes for having face to face meetings, we treat those people the same way as we treat the people who genuinely want to get involved.
So long as At-Large leadership is selected bottom-up by a reasonably democratic process, it will not always include the "hardest workers". Politics of various sorts can happen in any region, and it is not a stretch to say that "number of hours spent on ICANN in the past" can often be rended insignificant in an election campaign next to social skills, global geopolitics or other factors. Somebody may be elected based on nothing more than a promise to vote a certain way on ALAC statements or to advance a very specific agenda on a narrow range of issues. How do you confront that without threatening the democratic process? The easy answer is to ask ICANN for more travel spots as Olivier suggests, so that (as one possible example) working group chairs (which are usually in their posts by merit rather than politics because of the workload). Well, that's an easy answer for us -- to the rest of ICANN's constituencies, most of which already take At-Large to be a charity case, this will be a tough sell. (Then again, ICANN could if it chooses help At-Large look for outside participation sponsorship -- yet it is unwilling, or unable, to do so.) Anyway... back when I was more deeply involved in At-Large, I resisted and even belittled the various attempts to push, prod, measure and silo us. Most of these efforts deserve continuing ridicule, for they remain largely navel-gazing exercises which are more effective at distraction and time-burning than anything else. IMO, there are three overarching needs of At-Large: - How do we make ICANN and its dilemmas more accessible to the global public? - How can we best determine what is important to that public? - How can we best advance those priorities within ICANN without being marginalized? Everything we do must serve one of those needs. This means frankly answering: Who needs to do what at F2F meetings? (Maybe some of our most important travel is NOT to ICANN meetings?) How are we engaging with the public outside ICANN? (If CROPP is as good as it gets let's not even bother) What staff support do we need in research and communications? (Can we get stats and opinion polls to back our policy actions?) How do we mobilize pubic opinion? (First, we get the public to care) Wringing our collective hands over how to deal with laggards and tourists -- who happen to be popular enough to get elected -- pre-occupied ALAC before I got involved, and it continues to suck energy out of addressing the real reason the At-Large community even exists. Meanwhile, the other parts of ICANN that prefer At-Large weak and ineffectual, delight in our tail-chasing. - Evan
Evan understands the structural problems very well. I'm not so much worried about the politics of organisation. That will always be with us. My concern is the loss of objective. If policy development advice is our objective, we face pretty much the same basic challenge for leadership selection as we do for determining policy advice itself. Knowledge is just one of a set of necessary pre-requisites. But that is uneven in both quality and quantity. And when we equate bottom-up democratic decision-making with a vote or policy advice with a vote, we must be willing to emphasize the pre-requisites; informed consent. And, in addition, accept we're gambling. Informed consent takes investment in lots of things, like homework. And that smacks of hard labour. Back to uneven outcomes. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 8 August 2015 at 09:37, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
3. The latter ones come to meetings, perhaps attend some meetings, enjoy the local offerings, and go home and forget about us until the next trip. THOSE are the ones that I have a real problem with.
And unfortunately whenever the time comes for having face to face meetings, we treat those people the same way as we treat the people who genuinely want to get involved.
So long as At-Large leadership is selected bottom-up by a reasonably democratic process, it will not always include the "hardest workers". Politics of various sorts can happen in any region, and it is not a stretch to say that "number of hours spent on ICANN in the past" can often be rended insignificant in an election campaign next to social skills, global geopolitics or other factors.
Somebody may be elected based on nothing more than a promise to vote a certain way on ALAC statements or to advance a very specific agenda on a narrow range of issues. How do you confront that without threatening the democratic process?
The easy answer is to ask ICANN for more travel spots as Olivier suggests, so that (as one possible example) working group chairs (which are usually in their posts by merit rather than politics because of the workload). Well, that's an easy answer for us -- to the rest of ICANN's constituencies, most of which already take At-Large to be a charity case, this will be a tough sell.
(Then again, ICANN could if it chooses help At-Large look for outside participation sponsorship -- yet it is unwilling, or unable, to do so.)
Anyway... back when I was more deeply involved in At-Large, I resisted and even belittled the various attempts to push, prod, measure and silo us. Most of these efforts deserve continuing ridicule, for they remain largely navel-gazing exercises which are more effective at distraction and time-burning than anything else.
IMO, there are three overarching needs of At-Large:
- How do we make ICANN and its dilemmas more accessible to the global public? - How can we best determine what is important to that public? - How can we best advance those priorities within ICANN without being marginalized?
Everything we do must serve one of those needs. This means frankly answering:
Who needs to do what at F2F meetings? (Maybe some of our most important travel is NOT to ICANN meetings?)
How are we engaging with the public outside ICANN? (If CROPP is as good as it gets let's not even bother)
What staff support do we need in research and communications? (Can we get stats and opinion polls to back our policy actions?)
How do we mobilize pubic opinion? (First, we get the public to care)
Wringing our collective hands over how to deal with laggards and tourists -- who happen to be popular enough to get elected -- pre-occupied ALAC before I got involved, and it continues to suck energy out of addressing the real reason the At-Large community even exists.
Meanwhile, the other parts of ICANN that prefer At-Large weak and ineffectual, delight in our tail-chasing. - Evan
+1. The challenge is adjusting the structural underpinnings of the At-Large engagement in ICANN and the perceptions of performance. And that will be difficult, at best. More to the point, we are not seeing the kind of innovative thinking about performance metrics that would make what you and I see as value come to the top. Case in point. We had a recent situation in LACRALO where it was seriously proposed that if one sends an apology for non-attendance - *note well, purely not attending* - an online meeting, that should be counted as participation! And, some benighted fella would claim offense if one were to reflexively say aloud that the notion as expressed offends even the commonsensical idea of what is stupid. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 2:37 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Alan,
agreed on all your other points.
On 08/08/2015 00:58, Alan Greenberg wrote:
3. The latter ones come to meetings, perhaps attend some meetings, enjoy the local offerings, and go home and forget about us until the next trip. THOSE are the ones that I have a real problem with.
And unfortunately whenever the time comes for having face to face meetings, we treat those people the same way as we treat the people who genuinely want to get involved. It is impossible to build a relationship with people who do not make the effort to keep involved in between face to face meetingsMy argument is that we should identify people who have a genuine interest in helping out and facilitate their involvement in face to face meetings, more often than at GAs every 5 years. So far, what I have done is to give excellent references to people applying for the fellowship program and whom I judge to be of real potential. But that's not enough since the program is only available for developing nations. This is why I would favour the ability for the ALAC to invite people from their ALSes to an ICANN meeting, based on a skill requirement. For example, the hot topic is about WHOIS, let's invite people whom we know to be privacy experts. The hot topic is about ICANN Accountability - let's invite people who run an ALS that has a need to impeccable accountability. etc.
Kind regards,
Olivier
Hi Carlton Just a quick note - for people like me, I can only do so many calls at 0200 (I am not another CLO), but do read meeting transcripts, and do participate in discussions on line, so be a bit careful on what is meant by participation. That said, continual apologies - and nothing more - should be worth about zero Holly On 9 Aug 2015, at 9:39 am, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
+1.
The challenge is adjusting the structural underpinnings of the At-Large engagement in ICANN and the perceptions of performance. And that will be difficult, at best.
More to the point, we are not seeing the kind of innovative thinking about performance metrics that would make what you and I see as value come to the top.
Case in point. We had a recent situation in LACRALO where it was seriously proposed that if one sends an apology for non-attendance - note well, purely not attending - an online meeting, that should be counted as participation!
And, some benighted fella would claim offense if one were to reflexively say aloud that the notion as expressed offends even the commonsensical idea of what is stupid.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 2:37 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Dear Alan,
agreed on all your other points.
On 08/08/2015 00:58, Alan Greenberg wrote:
3. The latter ones come to meetings, perhaps attend some meetings, enjoy the local offerings, and go home and forget about us until the next trip. THOSE are the ones that I have a real problem with.
And unfortunately whenever the time comes for having face to face meetings, we treat those people the same way as we treat the people who genuinely want to get involved. It is impossible to build a relationship with people who do not make the effort to keep involved in between face to face meetingsMy argument is that we should identify people who have a genuine interest in helping out and facilitate their involvement in face to face meetings, more often than at GAs every 5 years. So far, what I have done is to give excellent references to people applying for the fellowship program and whom I judge to be of real potential. But that's not enough since the program is only available for developing nations. This is why I would favour the ability for the ALAC to invite people from their ALSes to an ICANN meeting, based on a skill requirement. For example, the hot topic is about WHOIS, let's invite people whom we know to be privacy experts. The hot topic is about ICANN Accountability - let's invite people who run an ALS that has a need to impeccable accountability. etc.
Kind regards,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Alan, I hear you. I can also agree we could indeed categorise and I have no problem with the ones you have defined. We can also agree that a variety of motivations to serve will bring varying performance. Like you, the thrill from air travel is long gone for me as well. I do what I must. These days after 4 days elapsed time, I'm usually ready to go home. I have only two pleasure trips left in me; taking that Trans Siberian Express train from Moscow to the Russian Far East and Vladivostok, a trek thru Mongolia. Anyone wants to hand me a travel benefit then those are the only ones that will count! As to that 3rd group you staked out, it is indeed irksome they show up, short on even intention to assist in the heavy lifting. I paraphrase that eminent philosopher Forrest Gump; 'representatives are like a box of chocolate, you never know what you will get'. A few ne'er-do-wells will get thru our processes time and again. I see this as a price you pay for voluntarism; what I call uneven results and performance. Its like the ICANN Fellowship programme. I can't tell you how many Fellows - some of whom I have recommended - we have tried to engage after the fellowship trip that simply ignore us. For some the fellowship week experience was overwhelming; too much packed in days that are too long. They wonder how I find the time to do ICANN with all my other commitments and interests they know about. A few have even asked me directly if I'm getting paid 'under the table'! But we harvest a few for the long haul. Again, let's manage expectations. We must expect uneven results and performance. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Carlton, I think that there are three distinct categories of people here, and we are merging them together.
1. There are the dedicated hard workers for whom the travel may or may not be a "perk" at some level. I put you and me in that category. I have logged close to 2 million flying miles (that is, actual flown miles, not frequent flyer miles), and to quote an old song I am fond of "The thrill is a long time gone". I find it hard to consider a trip half-way across the world, where I may get 6 hours sleep, put in a grueling 7-10 days, and fly out again without seeing anything other than a hotel, perhaps 1 or 2 restaurants and the airport a perk or reward.
On the other hand, on rare occasions, I do tag some vacation onto an ICANN trip and from that perspective, it does add a bit of a personal benefit - generally giving me an opportunity to see a place that I might not have done on my own.
2. There are volunteers who are not among among our heavy lifters (really dedicated workers), but want to get involved. They are the ones that our GAs and summits should be targeted at. They are at the meetings to learn, and try to stay involved after.
3. The latter ones come to meetings, perhaps attend some meetings, enjoy the local offerings, and go home and forget about us until the next trip. THOSE are the ones that I have a real problem with.
Of course, there are also some who straddle several categories. BUt when they go into option 3, I have a problem.
Alan
At 07/08/2015 01:55 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
I participated in this morning's call and wanted to level the playing field by enunciating some principles and a framework for our discussions.
Let's start with some principles.
1) The At-Large is a volunteer-led and fueled organisation and whatever we do MUST be informed by unassailable facts we know of voluntary organisations plus the psychology of voluntarism.
2) Individuals make the worthwhile contributions, not organisations.
3) There is a wide range of motivations for voluntarily contributing and these must be fed for sustaining worthwhile contributions
4) Results matter but volunteer contributions across the board shall always be uneven
So now, the framework for discussions. There are structural issues as well as political issues that must be embraced for any viable solution to emerge. The ICANN/RALO MOU is the source of the first structurally-generated challenge.
While it recognizes individuals as the providers of policy advice, it locates individual actions in organisations called ALS. And by so doing suggests that value be given to the organisation. Some RALOs, like NARALO, have developed rules that recognize individual contributions but have shoehorned valuation for contribution into an ALS structure. I'm not now sure what the answer should be but I know what we now have is not fit to purpose and objective.
Another structural issue. An individual coming to the ICANN policy development ecosystem is going to become a worthwhile contributor by virtue of mental acumen, penchant for hard work and time in place. Time in place is the common criteria for success. So current arrangements give extra value to experienced volunteers.
At the same time, new blood is required to sustain the flow of worthwhile contributors. Here's the thing. Face-to-Face (f2f) ICANN meetings are the best platforms to learn and to become familiarized with this complex beast called the ICANN ecosystem.
The effectiveness of a volunteer in policy development is directly related to serial opportunity to participate in ICANN f2f meetings. It is no accident that the most impactful groups in ICANN are a) those that get to f2f meetings as 'volunteers' engaged in compensated work b) Those who have the wherewithal to self-fund attendance at ICANN f2f meetings.
The task is to develop a framework that strikes a balance which takes into account the need for experienced volunteers with capacity to deliver worthwhile contributions even as we build capacity in newer less-experienced volunteers to sustain the At-Large participation agenda.
The current funding model for attendance of At-Large volunteers to ICANN f2f meetings assist ALAC representatives, liaisons from ALAC to qualified SOs/ACs plus named RALO leadership. This construct seemingly presumes a direct line of inheritance from RALO leadership thru ALAC representation. We know it is a presumption without merit, especially if worthwhile contributions to policy discussions is the objective for the At-Large in ICANN.
It is always wrong to think of travel funding to ICANN f2f meeting as a benefit to a volunteer! It is not and cannot be!
ALAC representation compels attending three (3) f2f meetings per annum. They are coincident with the ICANN meetings. In this context, travel funding is purely part of the infrastructural cost to fulfill an obligation. Otherwise it is like working for a company that has business far removed from my place of domicile and expect performance without provisioning the tools that enable that performance.
It rankles me personally when my contributions in both time and treasure to the ICANN enterprise is neither accounted or valorized. Then insult is added to my injury when some goof equates a trip sitting in steerage for upwards of 17+ hours [the flight time from Chicago to New Delhi] as a benefit!
I travel by air a lot for work; the miles are now counted in millions. In the years I sat as an ALAC member + the incumbent Secretariat for LACRALO and as a senior staffer at The University of the West Indies, I contributed my vacation time of 3 weeks to ICANN for attending f2f meetings. This does not count the average 20+ hours per week I normally dedicate to ICANN matters. Nor my personal spend of a minimum of US$500 to attend said meetings! These all contribute to ICANN having a real opportunity to record it is indeed multi-stakeholder, is fulfilling its AoC obligations and has contributions from end user representatives to its policy development.
Back in time, I was roundly criticised by some of my At-Large colleagues for my position in dealing with so-called ALAC 'tourists'. This matter came to the top in India; LACRALO representatives to ALAC were accused of abandoning ALAC business for a tour of Indian tourist sites. This still haunts the At-Large in ICANN circles. My firm stand against any sanctions or additional criteria applied for travel support funding was interpreted as 'protecting' the members accused from sanctions for inattention to duty. That was never my objective and it still is not the case today. I just cannot accept the notion that travel funding is a benefit to the volunteer. I shall, on principle, oppose any such notion, howsoever derived or configured.
Finally, in the chat we heard talk of a 'reviewer' being appointed. While the roles and responsibilities of such a person/actor is not yet outlined, let us be clear to ring fence and give specific instructions as to what we are trying to achieve here. We must recognize from principles that volunteers give as much as they can to the cause. The contributions in time and treasure of a Olivier Crepin-Leblond or Cheryl Langdon Orr cannot be used as a benchmark for either engagement or indeed, worthwhile contributions.
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... )
As an ICANN fellow coming into AT large and eventually ALAC within a space of year it was a big challenge for me. I struggled for the first six months and played catch up a lot. Missing my inaugural ALAC meeting didn't help matters as well. I coped by identifying an ALAC member (Tijani) and attaching myself as a Mentee. This really helped me get up to speed and stay involved as well as contribute where I could. I believe ALAC members as well as ALSs are expected to hit the ground running once they enter the fold but not enough is done to perhaps help them stay in the fold. My mentorship with Tijani helped immensely and I think it's an approach worth considering. Regards Beran "There is nothing more difficult to arrange and more dangerous to carry through than initiating change..." Machiavelli Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Aug 2015, at 00:18, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan, I hear you. I can also agree we could indeed categorise and I have no problem with the ones you have defined. We can also agree that a variety of motivations to serve will bring varying performance.
Like you, the thrill from air travel is long gone for me as well. I do what I must. These days after 4 days elapsed time, I'm usually ready to go home. I have only two pleasure trips left in me; taking that Trans Siberian Express train from Moscow to the Russian Far East and Vladivostok, a trek thru Mongolia. Anyone wants to hand me a travel benefit then those are the only ones that will count!
As to that 3rd group you staked out, it is indeed irksome they show up, short on even intention to assist in the heavy lifting. I paraphrase that eminent philosopher Forrest Gump; 'representatives are like a box of chocolate, you never know what you will get'. A few ne'er-do-wells will get thru our processes time and again. I see this as a price you pay for voluntarism; what I call uneven results and performance.
Its like the ICANN Fellowship programme. I can't tell you how many Fellows - some of whom I have recommended - we have tried to engage after the fellowship trip that simply ignore us. For some the fellowship week experience was overwhelming; too much packed in days that are too long. They wonder how I find the time to do ICANN with all my other commitments and interests they know about. A few have even asked me directly if I'm getting paid 'under the table'! But we harvest a few for the long haul. Again, let's manage expectations. We must expect uneven results and performance.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Carlton, I think that there are three distinct categories of people here, and we are merging them together.
1. There are the dedicated hard workers for whom the travel may or may not be a "perk" at some level. I put you and me in that category. I have logged close to 2 million flying miles (that is, actual flown miles, not frequent flyer miles), and to quote an old song I am fond of "The thrill is a long time gone". I find it hard to consider a trip half-way across the world, where I may get 6 hours sleep, put in a grueling 7-10 days, and fly out again without seeing anything other than a hotel, perhaps 1 or 2 restaurants and the airport a perk or reward.
On the other hand, on rare occasions, I do tag some vacation onto an ICANN trip and from that perspective, it does add a bit of a personal benefit - generally giving me an opportunity to see a place that I might not have done on my own.
2. There are volunteers who are not among among our heavy lifters (really dedicated workers), but want to get involved. They are the ones that our GAs and summits should be targeted at. They are at the meetings to learn, and try to stay involved after.
3. The latter ones come to meetings, perhaps attend some meetings, enjoy the local offerings, and go home and forget about us until the next trip. THOSE are the ones that I have a real problem with.
Of course, there are also some who straddle several categories. BUt when they go into option 3, I have a problem.
Alan
At 07/08/2015 01:55 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
I participated in this morning's call and wanted to level the playing field by enunciating some principles and a framework for our discussions.
Let's start with some principles.
1) The At-Large is a volunteer-led and fueled organisation and whatever we do MUST be informed by unassailable facts we know of voluntary organisations plus the psychology of voluntarism.
2) Individuals make the worthwhile contributions, not organisations.
3) There is a wide range of motivations for voluntarily contributing and these must be fed for sustaining worthwhile contributions
4) Results matter but volunteer contributions across the board shall always be uneven
So now, the framework for discussions. There are structural issues as well as political issues that must be embraced for any viable solution to emerge. The ICANN/RALO MOU is the source of the first structurally-generated challenge.
While it recognizes individuals as the providers of policy advice, it locates individual actions in organisations called ALS. And by so doing suggests that value be given to the organisation. Some RALOs, like NARALO, have developed rules that recognize individual contributions but have shoehorned valuation for contribution into an ALS structure. I'm not now sure what the answer should be but I know what we now have is not fit to purpose and objective.
Another structural issue. An individual coming to the ICANN policy development ecosystem is going to become a worthwhile contributor by virtue of mental acumen, penchant for hard work and time in place. Time in place is the common criteria for success. So current arrangements give extra value to experienced volunteers.
At the same time, new blood is required to sustain the flow of worthwhile contributors. Here's the thing. Face-to-Face (f2f) ICANN meetings are the best platforms to learn and to become familiarized with this complex beast called the ICANN ecosystem.
The effectiveness of a volunteer in policy development is directly related to serial opportunity to participate in ICANN f2f meetings. It is no accident that the most impactful groups in ICANN are a) those that get to f2f meetings as 'volunteers' engaged in compensated work b) Those who have the wherewithal to self-fund attendance at ICANN f2f meetings.
The task is to develop a framework that strikes a balance which takes into account the need for experienced volunteers with capacity to deliver worthwhile contributions even as we build capacity in newer less-experienced volunteers to sustain the At-Large participation agenda.
The current funding model for attendance of At-Large volunteers to ICANN f2f meetings assist ALAC representatives, liaisons from ALAC to qualified SOs/ACs plus named RALO leadership. This construct seemingly presumes a direct line of inheritance from RALO leadership thru ALAC representation. We know it is a presumption without merit, especially if worthwhile contributions to policy discussions is the objective for the At-Large in ICANN.
It is always wrong to think of travel funding to ICANN f2f meeting as a benefit to a volunteer! It is not and cannot be!
ALAC representation compels attending three (3) f2f meetings per annum. They are coincident with the ICANN meetings. In this context, travel funding is purely part of the infrastructural cost to fulfill an obligation. Otherwise it is like working for a company that has business far removed from my place of domicile and expect performance without provisioning the tools that enable that performance.
It rankles me personally when my contributions in both time and treasure to the ICANN enterprise is neither accounted or valorized. Then insult is added to my injury when some goof equates a trip sitting in steerage for upwards of 17+ hours [the flight time from Chicago to New Delhi] as a benefit!
I travel by air a lot for work; the miles are now counted in millions. In the years I sat as an ALAC member + the incumbent Secretariat for LACRALO and as a senior staffer at The University of the West Indies, I contributed my vacation time of 3 weeks to ICANN for attending f2f meetings. This does not count the average 20+ hours per week I normally dedicate to ICANN matters. Nor my personal spend of a minimum of US$500 to attend said meetings! These all contribute to ICANN having a real opportunity to record it is indeed multi-stakeholder, is fulfilling its AoC obligations and has contributions from end user representatives to its policy development.
Back in time, I was roundly criticised by some of my At-Large colleagues for my position in dealing with so-called ALAC 'tourists'. This matter came to the top in India; LACRALO representatives to ALAC were accused of abandoning ALAC business for a tour of Indian tourist sites. This still haunts the At-Large in ICANN circles. My firm stand against any sanctions or additional criteria applied for travel support funding was interpreted as 'protecting' the members accused from sanctions for inattention to duty. That was never my objective and it still is not the case today. I just cannot accept the notion that travel funding is a benefit to the volunteer. I shall, on principle, oppose any such notion, howsoever derived or configured.
Finally, in the chat we heard talk of a 'reviewer' being appointed. While the roles and responsibilities of such a person/actor is not yet outlined, let us be clear to ring fence and give specific instructions as to what we are trying to achieve here. We must recognize from principles that volunteers give as much as they can to the cause. The contributions in time and treasure of a Olivier Crepin-Leblond or Cheryl Langdon Orr cannot be used as a benchmark for either engagement or indeed, worthwhile contributions.
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... )
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Thanks Beran I don’t think any of us started our life with ALAC knowing what was going on. And I think your suggestion is a very good one - having those with experience of ALAC mentor the new comers. Because, yes, it is a challenge all of have faced, and the more we can do to help out, the better Holly On 9 Aug 2015, at 6:05 pm, Beran Dondeh <berandondeh@yahoo.com> wrote:
As an ICANN fellow coming into AT large and eventually ALAC within a space of year it was a big challenge for me. I struggled for the first six months and played catch up a lot. Missing my inaugural ALAC meeting didn't help matters as well.
I coped by identifying an ALAC member (Tijani) and attaching myself as a Mentee. This really helped me get up to speed and stay involved as well as contribute where I could.
I believe ALAC members as well as ALSs are expected to hit the ground running once they enter the fold but not enough is done to perhaps help them stay in the fold.
My mentorship with Tijani helped immensely and I think it's an approach worth considering.
Regards
Beran "There is nothing more difficult to arrange and more dangerous to carry through than initiating change..." Machiavelli
Sent from my iPhone
On 9 Aug 2015, at 00:18, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Alan, I hear you. I can also agree we could indeed categorise and I have no problem with the ones you have defined. We can also agree that a variety of motivations to serve will bring varying performance.
Like you, the thrill from air travel is long gone for me as well. I do what I must. These days after 4 days elapsed time, I'm usually ready to go home. I have only two pleasure trips left in me; taking that Trans Siberian Express train from Moscow to the Russian Far East and Vladivostok, a trek thru Mongolia. Anyone wants to hand me a travel benefit then those are the only ones that will count!
As to that 3rd group you staked out, it is indeed irksome they show up, short on even intention to assist in the heavy lifting. I paraphrase that eminent philosopher Forrest Gump; 'representatives are like a box of chocolate, you never know what you will get'. A few ne'er-do-wells will get thru our processes time and again. I see this as a price you pay for voluntarism; what I call uneven results and performance.
Its like the ICANN Fellowship programme. I can't tell you how many Fellows - some of whom I have recommended - we have tried to engage after the fellowship trip that simply ignore us. For some the fellowship week experience was overwhelming; too much packed in days that are too long. They wonder how I find the time to do ICANN with all my other commitments and interests they know about. A few have even asked me directly if I'm getting paid 'under the table'! But we harvest a few for the long haul. Again, let's manage expectations. We must expect uneven results and performance.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: Carlton, I think that there are three distinct categories of people here, and we are merging them together.
1. There are the dedicated hard workers for whom the travel may or may not be a "perk" at some level. I put you and me in that category. I have logged close to 2 million flying miles (that is, actual flown miles, not frequent flyer miles), and to quote an old song I am fond of "The thrill is a long time gone". I find it hard to consider a trip half-way across the world, where I may get 6 hours sleep, put in a grueling 7-10 days, and fly out again without seeing anything other than a hotel, perhaps 1 or 2 restaurants and the airport a perk or reward.
On the other hand, on rare occasions, I do tag some vacation onto an ICANN trip and from that perspective, it does add a bit of a personal benefit - generally giving me an opportunity to see a place that I might not have done on my own.
2. There are volunteers who are not among among our heavy lifters (really dedicated workers), but want to get involved. They are the ones that our GAs and summits should be targeted at. They are at the meetings to learn, and try to stay involved after.
3. The latter ones come to meetings, perhaps attend some meetings, enjoy the local offerings, and go home and forget about us until the next trip. THOSE are the ones that I have a real problem with.
Of course, there are also some who straddle several categories. BUt when they go into option 3, I have a problem.
Alan
At 07/08/2015 01:55 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
I participated in this morning's call and wanted to level the playing field by enunciating some principles and a framework for our discussions.
Let's start with some principles.
1) The At-Large is a volunteer-led and fueled organisation and whatever we do MUST be informed by unassailable facts we know of voluntary organisations plus the psychology of voluntarism.
2) Individuals make the worthwhile contributions, not organisations.
3) There is a wide range of motivations for voluntarily contributing and these must be fed for sustaining worthwhile contributions
4) Results matter but volunteer contributions across the board shall always be uneven
So now, the framework for discussions. There are structural issues as well as political issues that must be embraced for any viable solution to emerge. The ICANN/RALO MOU is the source of the first structurally-generated challenge.
While it recognizes individuals as the providers of policy advice, it locates individual actions in organisations called ALS. And by so doing suggests that value be given to the organisation. Some RALOs, like NARALO, have developed rules that recognize individual contributions but have shoehorned valuation for contribution into an ALS structure. I'm not now sure what the answer should be but I know what we now have is not fit to purpose and objective.
Another structural issue. An individual coming to the ICANN policy development ecosystem is going to become a worthwhile contributor by virtue of mental acumen, penchant for hard work and time in place. Time in place is the common criteria for success. So current arrangements give extra value to experienced volunteers.
At the same time, new blood is required to sustain the flow of worthwhile contributors. Here's the thing. Face-to-Face (f2f) ICANN meetings are the best platforms to learn and to become familiarized with this complex beast called the ICANN ecosystem.
The effectiveness of a volunteer in policy development is directly related to serial opportunity to participate in ICANN f2f meetings. It is no accident that the most impactful groups in ICANN are a) those that get to f2f meetings as 'volunteers' engaged in compensated work b) Those who have the wherewithal to self-fund attendance at ICANN f2f meetings.
The task is to develop a framework that strikes a balance which takes into account the need for experienced volunteers with capacity to deliver worthwhile contributions even as we build capacity in newer less-experienced volunteers to sustain the At-Large participation agenda.
The current funding model for attendance of At-Large volunteers to ICANN f2f meetings assist ALAC representatives, liaisons from ALAC to qualified SOs/ACs plus named RALO leadership. This construct seemingly presumes a direct line of inheritance from RALO leadership thru ALAC representation. We know it is a presumption without merit, especially if worthwhile contributions to policy discussions is the objective for the At-Large in ICANN.
It is always wrong to think of travel funding to ICANN f2f meeting as a benefit to a volunteer! It is not and cannot be!
ALAC representation compels attending three (3) f2f meetings per annum. They are coincident with the ICANN meetings. In this context, travel funding is purely part of the infrastructural cost to fulfill an obligation. Otherwise it is like working for a company that has business far removed from my place of domicile and expect performance without provisioning the tools that enable that performance.
It rankles me personally when my contributions in both time and treasure to the ICANN enterprise is neither accounted or valorized. Then insult is added to my injury when some goof equates a trip sitting in steerage for upwards of 17+ hours [the flight time from Chicago to New Delhi] as a benefit!
I travel by air a lot for work; the miles are now counted in millions. In the years I sat as an ALAC member + the incumbent Secretariat for LACRALO and as a senior staffer at The University of the West Indies, I contributed my vacation time of 3 weeks to ICANN for attending f2f meetings. This does not count the average 20+ hours per week I normally dedicate to ICANN matters. Nor my personal spend of a minimum of US$500 to attend said meetings! These all contribute to ICANN having a real opportunity to record it is indeed multi-stakeholder, is fulfilling its AoC obligations and has contributions from end user representatives to its policy development.
Back in time, I was roundly criticised by some of my At-Large colleagues for my position in dealing with so-called ALAC 'tourists'. This matter came to the top in India; LACRALO representatives to ALAC were accused of abandoning ALAC business for a tour of Indian tourist sites. This still haunts the At-Large in ICANN circles. My firm stand against any sanctions or additional criteria applied for travel support funding was interpreted as 'protecting' the members accused from sanctions for inattention to duty. That was never my objective and it still is not the case today. I just cannot accept the notion that travel funding is a benefit to the volunteer. I shall, on principle, oppose any such notion, howsoever derived or configured.
Finally, in the chat we heard talk of a 'reviewer' being appointed. While the roles and responsibilities of such a person/actor is not yet outlined, let us be clear to ring fence and give specific instructions as to what we are trying to achieve here. We must recognize from principles that volunteers give as much as they can to the cause. The contributions in time and treasure of a Olivier Crepin-Leblond or Cheryl Langdon Orr cannot be used as a benchmark for either engagement or indeed, worthwhile contributions.
Best, -Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA... )
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Beran Dondeh -
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
Holly Raiche -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond