Re: [lac-discuss-en] [ALAC] Draft revised Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements
I agree 100% Jacqueline Carlton Samuels wrote:
This is a very measured response because quite frankly, this entire chapter tends to make this *voluntary* situation seems like work for fee. Secondly, it is offends reason and vex the spirit to think that minutes spent in a meeting is being equated with participation! [Do indulge and give me relief on this notion!]
All in all, I support the general thrust of Alan's views. And if this proposal came to a vote as is, I would *strongly recommend and encourage* LACRALO representatives to ALAC to vote NO.
Carlton
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 02:09 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Draft revised Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements
(Comment also posted to the wiki.)
There is a draft revision of the ALAC Rules of Procedure Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements posted at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?cairo_documents. The draft sets out the expectations of ALAC members and others, and includes remedies for non-performance. I have quite strong feelings about this proposal.
First, those of you who have heard me talk or read my comments about ALAC members who cannot or do not participating effectively know that I fell that this problem must be addressed. However, I feel the documents is totally inappropriate in a number of ways.
If it comes to a vote in anywhere near the current version, I will vote against it.
I could write a lot on this, but I will try to keep this short, and hopefully start a dialogue. Here is gist of my concerns:
- The fact that this is a 10 page document, up from the previous 1 page is a first symptom. We should not need to go into things at that level. The people participating in our group should be sufficiently professional and intelligent that we do not have to do this.
- As with the previous version, it sets specific, quantitative targets for some aspects of performance and demands 100% compliance or be subject to removal. This version is slightly better in that it gives some option for correction. But it is still relies too much on an automata view of process (that is, prescribed such that it could be implemented by a computer without human intervention).
- I object to decision making delegated in such a broad way to the Chair and the Executive Committee (a concept that does not even exist in the rest of the RoP).
I have no problem describing expectations and in fact I strongly advocate it. But writing rules such as these almost sets the expectations that we are going to have a lot of people in violation of them. We should set reasonable expectations, and in the (hopefully rare) cases that people are not meeting them, take effective action.
If we feel that we need such detailed and rigid rules to get effective participation, we are not selecting the right people, and THAT is something that we should be addressing with the highest priority.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1737 - Release Date: 21/10/2008 02:10 PM
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-lists...
I agree with this comment made by Carlton. Excellent! Carlos Dionisio Aguirre> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:38:04 -0400> From: jam@jacquelinemorris.com> To: carlton.samuels@uwimona.edu.jm> CC: lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] [lac-discuss-en] Draft revised Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements> > I agree 100%> Jacqueline> Carlton Samuels wrote:> > This is a very measured response because quite frankly, this entire chapter> > tends to make this *voluntary* situation seems like work for fee. Secondly,> > it is offends reason and vex the spirit to think that minutes spent in a> > meeting is being equated with participation! [Do indulge and give me relief> > on this notion!]> >> > All in all, I support the general thrust of Alan's views. And if this> > proposal came to a vote as is, I would *strongly recommend and encourage*> > LACRALO representatives to ALAC to vote NO.> >> > Carlton> >> > -----Original Message-----> > From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg> > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 02:09 PM> > To: ALAC Working List> > Subject: [ALAC] Draft revised Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements> >> > (Comment also posted to the wiki.)> >> > There is a draft revision of the ALAC Rules of Procedure Rule 21 - > > Minimum Participation Requirements posted at > > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?cairo_documents. The draft sets > > out the expectations of ALAC members and others, and includes > > remedies for non-performance. I have quite strong feelings about this > > proposal.> >> > First, those of you who have heard me talk or read my comments about > > ALAC members who cannot or do not participating effectively know that > > I fell that this problem must be addressed. However, I feel the > > documents is totally inappropriate in a number of ways.> >> > If it comes to a vote in anywhere near the current version, I will > > vote against it.> >> > I could write a lot on this, but I will try to keep this short, and > > hopefully start a dialogue. Here is gist of my concerns:> >> > - The fact that this is a 10 page document, up from the previous 1 > > page is a first symptom. We should not need to go into things at that > > level. The people participating in our group should be sufficiently > > professional and intelligent that we do not have to do this.> >> > - As with the previous version, it sets specific, quantitative > > targets for some aspects of performance and demands 100% compliance > > or be subject to removal. This version is slightly better in that it > > gives some option for correction. But it is still relies too much on > > an automata view of process (that is, prescribed such that it could > > be implemented by a computer without human intervention).> >> > - I object to decision making delegated in such a broad way to the > > Chair and the Executive Committee (a concept that does not even exist > > in the rest of the RoP).> >> > I have no problem describing expectations and in fact I strongly > > advocate it. But writing rules such as these almost sets the > > expectations that we are going to have a lot of people in violation > > of them. We should set reasonable expectations, and in the (hopefully > > rare) cases that people are not meeting them, take effective action.> >> > If we feel that we need such detailed and rigid rules to get > > effective participation, we are not selecting the right people, and > > THAT is something that we should be addressing with the highest priority.> >> > Alan> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________> > ALAC mailing list> > ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org> > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac> >> > No virus found in this incoming message.> > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1737 - Release Date: 21/10/2008> > 02:10 PM> >> >> > _______________________________________________> > lac-discuss-en mailing list> > lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-lists...> > > > > _______________________________________________> ALAC mailing list> ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac _________________________________________________________________ Descargá GRATIS el poder del nuevo Internet Explorer 7. http://optimized.msn.com/Default.aspx?mkt=es-ar
I agree as well. Rabindra Jaggernauth ICT Society of Trinidad and Tobago I agree 100% Jacqueline Carlton Samuels wrote:
This is a very measured response because quite frankly, this entire chapter tends to make this *voluntary* situation seems like work for fee. Secondly, it is offends reason and vex the spirit to think that minutes spent in a meeting is being equated with participation! [Do indulge and give me relief on this notion!]
All in all, I support the general thrust of Alan's views. And if this proposal came to a vote as is, I would *strongly recommend and encourage* LACRALO representatives to ALAC to vote NO.
Carlton
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 02:09 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Draft revised Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements
(Comment also posted to the wiki.)
There is a draft revision of the ALAC Rules of Procedure Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements posted at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?cairo_documents. The draft sets out the expectations of ALAC members and others, and includes remedies for non-performance. I have quite strong feelings about this proposal.
First, those of you who have heard me talk or read my comments about ALAC members who cannot or do not participating effectively know that I fell that this problem must be addressed. However, I feel the documents is totally inappropriate in a number of ways.
If it comes to a vote in anywhere near the current version, I will vote against it.
I could write a lot on this, but I will try to keep this short, and hopefully start a dialogue. Here is gist of my concerns:
- The fact that this is a 10 page document, up from the previous 1 page is a first symptom. We should not need to go into things at that level. The people participating in our group should be sufficiently professional and intelligent that we do not have to do this.
- As with the previous version, it sets specific, quantitative targets for some aspects of performance and demands 100% compliance or be subject to removal. This version is slightly better in that it gives some option for correction. But it is still relies too much on an automata view of process (that is, prescribed such that it could be implemented by a computer without human intervention).
- I object to decision making delegated in such a broad way to the Chair and the Executive Committee (a concept that does not even exist in the rest of the RoP).
I have no problem describing expectations and in fact I strongly advocate it. But writing rules such as these almost sets the expectations that we are going to have a lot of people in violation of them. We should set reasonable expectations, and in the (hopefully rare) cases that people are not meeting them, take effective action.
If we feel that we need such detailed and rigid rules to get effective participation, we are not selecting the right people, and THAT is something that we should be addressing with the highest priority.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1737 - Release Date: 21/10/2008 02:10 PM
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-lists...
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-lists...
We agree with the views expressed by Alan Greenberg and also the position of the LACRALO Secretariat. We understand that there is a need for active participation but to expect RALOs to observe this level of requirements at this stage of our evolution development is a bit unreasonable. It is an issue that RALOs should attention to. This is not going to end in Cairo. There is clearly going to be continuous moves to get affiliated organs play a more active part in the deliberations of the ALAC. Best Regards Lance Hinds, Chairman, DevNet Lance Hinds Chief Technology Officer BrainStreet Technologies Georgetown, Guyana (592) 231-6530 www.brainstreetlearning.com -----Original Message----- From: lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rabindra Jaggernauth Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 8:03 AM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; Carlton Samuels Cc: lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org; 'ALAC Working List'; 'Alan Greenberg' Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] [ALAC] Draft revised Rule 21 -Minimum Participation Requirements I agree as well. Rabindra Jaggernauth ICT Society of Trinidad and Tobago I agree 100% Jacqueline Carlton Samuels wrote:
This is a very measured response because quite frankly, this entire chapter tends to make this *voluntary* situation seems like work for fee. Secondly, it is offends reason and vex the spirit to think that minutes spent in a meeting is being equated with participation! [Do indulge and give me relief on this notion!]
All in all, I support the general thrust of Alan's views. And if this proposal came to a vote as is, I would *strongly recommend and encourage* LACRALO representatives to ALAC to vote NO.
Carlton
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 02:09 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Draft revised Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements
(Comment also posted to the wiki.)
There is a draft revision of the ALAC Rules of Procedure Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements posted at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?cairo_documents. The draft sets out the expectations of ALAC members and others, and includes remedies for non-performance. I have quite strong feelings about this proposal.
First, those of you who have heard me talk or read my comments about ALAC members who cannot or do not participating effectively know that I fell that this problem must be addressed. However, I feel the documents is totally inappropriate in a number of ways.
If it comes to a vote in anywhere near the current version, I will vote against it.
I could write a lot on this, but I will try to keep this short, and hopefully start a dialogue. Here is gist of my concerns:
- The fact that this is a 10 page document, up from the previous 1 page is a first symptom. We should not need to go into things at that level. The people participating in our group should be sufficiently professional and intelligent that we do not have to do this.
- As with the previous version, it sets specific, quantitative targets for some aspects of performance and demands 100% compliance or be subject to removal. This version is slightly better in that it gives some option for correction. But it is still relies too much on an automata view of process (that is, prescribed such that it could be implemented by a computer without human intervention).
- I object to decision making delegated in such a broad way to the Chair and the Executive Committee (a concept that does not even exist in the rest of the RoP).
I have no problem describing expectations and in fact I strongly advocate it. But writing rules such as these almost sets the expectations that we are going to have a lot of people in violation of them. We should set reasonable expectations, and in the (hopefully rare) cases that people are not meeting them, take effective action.
If we feel that we need such detailed and rigid rules to get effective participation, we are not selecting the right people, and THAT is something that we should be addressing with the highest priority.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1737 - Release Date: 21/10/2008 02:10 PM
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-lists .icann.org
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-lists .icann.org _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-lists .icann.org
For clarity, it is worth noting that the paper is a discussion paper, not a proposal to be voted on; this is clearly stated on the front cover of the text. Moreover, it is in respect of ALAC members; even if the text as it is was adopted, it would not apply to the RALOs at all. On 29/10/2008 10:46, "Lance Hinds" <lhinds@gol.net.gy> wrote: We agree with the views expressed by Alan Greenberg and also the position of the LACRALO Secretariat. We understand that there is a need for active participation but to expect RALOs to observe this level of requirements at this stage of our evolution development is a bit unreasonable. It is an issue that RALOs should attention to. This is not going to end in Cairo. There is clearly going to be continuous moves to get affiliated organs play a more active part in the deliberations of the ALAC. Best Regards Lance Hinds, Chairman, DevNet Lance Hinds Chief Technology Officer BrainStreet Technologies Georgetown, Guyana (592) 231-6530 www.brainstreetlearning.com -----Original Message----- From: lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rabindra Jaggernauth Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 8:03 AM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; Carlton Samuels Cc: lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org; 'ALAC Working List'; 'Alan Greenberg' Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] [ALAC] Draft revised Rule 21 -Minimum Participation Requirements I agree as well. Rabindra Jaggernauth ICT Society of Trinidad and Tobago I agree 100% Jacqueline Carlton Samuels wrote:
This is a very measured response because quite frankly, this entire chapter tends to make this *voluntary* situation seems like work for fee. Secondly, it is offends reason and vex the spirit to think that minutes spent in a meeting is being equated with participation! [Do indulge and give me relief on this notion!]
All in all, I support the general thrust of Alan's views. And if this proposal came to a vote as is, I would *strongly recommend and encourage* LACRALO representatives to ALAC to vote NO.
Carlton
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 02:09 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Draft revised Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements
(Comment also posted to the wiki.)
There is a draft revision of the ALAC Rules of Procedure Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements posted at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?cairo_documents. The draft sets out the expectations of ALAC members and others, and includes remedies for non-performance. I have quite strong feelings about this proposal.
First, those of you who have heard me talk or read my comments about ALAC members who cannot or do not participating effectively know that I fell that this problem must be addressed. However, I feel the documents is totally inappropriate in a number of ways.
If it comes to a vote in anywhere near the current version, I will vote against it.
I could write a lot on this, but I will try to keep this short, and hopefully start a dialogue. Here is gist of my concerns:
- The fact that this is a 10 page document, up from the previous 1 page is a first symptom. We should not need to go into things at that level. The people participating in our group should be sufficiently professional and intelligent that we do not have to do this.
- As with the previous version, it sets specific, quantitative targets for some aspects of performance and demands 100% compliance or be subject to removal. This version is slightly better in that it gives some option for correction. But it is still relies too much on an automata view of process (that is, prescribed such that it could be implemented by a computer without human intervention).
- I object to decision making delegated in such a broad way to the Chair and the Executive Committee (a concept that does not even exist in the rest of the RoP).
I have no problem describing expectations and in fact I strongly advocate it. But writing rules such as these almost sets the expectations that we are going to have a lot of people in violation of them. We should set reasonable expectations, and in the (hopefully rare) cases that people are not meeting them, take effective action.
If we feel that we need such detailed and rigid rules to get effective participation, we are not selecting the right people, and THAT is something that we should be addressing with the highest priority.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1737 - Release Date: 21/10/2008 02:10 PM
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-lists .icann.org
_______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-lists .icann.org _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-lists .icann.org _______________________________________________ lac-discuss-en mailing list lac-discuss-en@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-lists... -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
participants (5)
-
carlos aguirre -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Lance Hinds -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Rabindra Jaggernauth