Independent Examiner’s Final Recommendation | At-Large should update its Rules of Procedure to include a new procedure regarding the appointment of RALO leaders and their corresponding responsibilities on the ALAC. ICANN Bylaws should also be updated accordingly. |
Issue Identified | |
Does ALAC Support Recommendation? | Reject |
If Not, Please Provide Reasoning. | The ALAC does not believe that ICANN or At-Large would be well served by having RALO-selected ALAC Members do double duty as both ALAC members and RALO leadership. It is sufficiently difficult to get most volunteers to commit to the level of work associated with either of these positions. Asking them to do double duty if not reasonable. Workload is already a major issue within At-Large and particularly for RALO leaders and ALAC Members. Although a small number of people put a vast number of hours into At-Large and ICANN matters, asking all such volunteers to do so is problematic. Moreover, if outreach is a prime focus of RALOS, these are not the optimal people to place on the ALAC and then debate policy issues. The concept that RALO leaders should at the same time be the RALO appointed ALAC Members presumes that:
Based on volunteer management experience within At-Large for many years, neither of these is likely to be true on a regular basis, and presuming it to be the case will inevitably lead to significant failure to deliver and minimize the fall-back mechanism in place to currently address such failures. |
If ALAC Does Not Support Recommendation, Does It Suggest an Alternative Recommendation? If so, please provide a suggested alternative Recommendation. | |
Prioritization | |
At-Large Comments | |
Possible Dependencies | |
Who Will Implement? | |
Resource Requirements | |
Budget Effects impact? | |
Implementation Timeline | |
Proposed Implementation Steps |
AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
5 Comments
Alan Greenberg
My thoughts
Status:Reject
Comment: The ALAC does not believe that ICANN or At-Large would be well served by having RALO-selected ALAC Members do double duty as both ALAC members and RALO leadership. It is sufficiently difficult to get most volunteers to commit to the level of work associated with either of these positions. Asking them to do double duty if not reasonable.
Glenn McKnight
Status Reject
Comment
As indicated in two other recommendations that the role of RALO chairs is not understood nor the amount of work involved to help build a viable community. No one would do twice the work with no remuneration, the workload is plenty enough not to add to it. You need to choose how you spend your time to be productive
Ariel Liang
ALAC comment in the ALAC Statement on the At-Large Review Draft Report
==
Outreach is already a core focus for RALOs today, not only for engaging new entrants but also for capacity building within the RALO (inreach). Mentoring has developed from this, for example, in APRALO where capacity building has focused on involvement by leadership volunteers in Workstream 2 policy issues which were highlighted in a survey last year to identify interest areas for potential involvement by APRALO members. The ALAC would support more ALS members being engaged in policy development.
**
Workload is already a major issue within At-Large and particularly for RALO leaders and ALAC Members. Although a small number of people put a vast number of hours into At-Large and ICANN matters, asking all such volunteers to do so is problematic. Moreover, if outreach is a prime focus of RALOS as implied by Implementation 6, these are not the optimal people to place on the ALAC and then debate policy issues.
**
The concept that RALO leaders should at the same time be the RALO appointed ALAC Members presumes that:
Based on volunteer management experience within At-Large for many years, neither of these is likely to be true on a regular basis, and presuming it to be the case will inevitably lead to significant failure to deliver.
Vanda Scartezini
for me, this recommendation results from the misunderstanding of RALO leaders role and the work they perform.
I am really sorry to see so waste of time and good minds resulting in such recommendations, many of them not applicable for us and to see so other issues we could benefice from good discussion with experts not involved with At LArge. no need to do more comments
Aida Noblia
I agree with Vanda that many of the ITEMS recommendations are not very useful. Even the EMM Recommendations are somewhat contradictory to what they propose: ITEMS says that we have to deal more with policies and fewer procedures. But almost all of the 7 EMM Recommendations refer to procedures, many of which are not shareable. The same is true for some of the 16 Recommendations.
However, in order to look for the positive part of this process, we can consider it as a Revision exercise carried out by the Community, in order to be able to continue to grow stronger and to move forward with more clearly explained and developed guidelines. Also with some adjustments and corrections that we indicate.
We hope that the considerations of the Community will be considered , especially as to the rejection of the model EMM, the elimination of the working groups, the change in the role of RALOS, the criterion of randomness for election of positions of responsibility and the admission of rapporteurs in the sense that they propose it.