Independent Examiner’s Final Recommendation | At-Large should update its Rules of Procedure to include a new procedure regarding the functioning and membership of the CoE. |
Issue Identified | |
Does ALAC Support Recommendation? | Reject, but accept the concept of acknowledging those who have contributed but no current appointments. |
If Not, Please Provide Reasoning. | The ALAC believes that the constraints around the membership of this Council, especially in relation to the rigid set of rules around how long a person could serve, how often they could travel, and the presumption that they would be endlessly available regardless of these rules, is (according to some of the current “elders” around At-Large) rather laughable. |
If ALAC Does Not Support Recommendation, Does It Suggest an Alternative Recommendation? If so, please provide a suggested alternative Recommendation. | The ALAC does not believe there is a wide-spread problem of people staying in positions longer than is healthy. When such a problem does exist, it should be dealt with, but volunteers dealing with volunteers and with appointments being made by their peers on occasion makes this problematic. Having a rule such as that recommended would address this, but would have far worse repercussions than the problem it is trying to address. Now that we have hard statistics (generated as part of the ALAC response to the draft Review Reports) they will be kept up to date and just having them should address part of the (minimal) problem. The ALAC will look at ways to recognize past leaders. |
Prioritization | Low Priority |
At-Large Comments | The Recommendation was driven by the belief that there is insufficient turnover and "new blood" among At-Large and particularly ALAC volunteers and that people are "clinging to power". This belief appears to have largely been driven by comments received from other AC/SO members, ICANN Staff, and some At-Large participants. There is no question that such perceptions exist in the community. The documented history does not support these allegations. In the entire history of the modern ALAC (after the Interim ALAC was appointed by the Board), there have been 65 RALO and NomCom appointed ALAC members and only five of them have served for more than two consecutive terms (and two of those only exceeded the two-term point after the last AGM). Taking this into account, ALAC term limits would not have had much impact in the past, and it is unclear if having such limits would have fixed problems, or created them. That being said, term limits may well be reasonable, but it is less clear that two terms is optimal. One RALO currently has a shorter limit, and others may feel that in critical times, the limit should be able to be overridden. The only RALOs with term limits for ALAC Members are LACRALO (1 term, 2 years) and NARALO (2 terms, 4 years), but it is clear that very relatively few ALAC member exceed stay beyond two terms. The ITEMS Team went further and said there should be term limits for serving in ANY capacity as an ALAC Member, Liaison or NomCom delegate, and presumably the new "raporteur" positions they were advocating. That is, after 4 years, a person must completely leave any volunteer position. This is a requirement unlike that in any other part of ICANN, where continuity is valued and people often move from one role to another, making good use of their knowledge, experience and contacts. The Review Team received many comments alluding to a lack of volunteer turnover and there was one identified statement saying that the ALAC today was composed of the same people as it did 7-10 years ago. Actual volunteer statistics tell a quite different story. They demonstrate that over the 14 years of the ALAC history, and the 10 years since the current ALAC plus RALOs have existed, there has been very abundant turnover. Over the life of the ALAC,
A constant stream of new people enter into these leadership positions. Many stay just for a single terms, some for a more extended period, and a few for relatively long periods. Often, a person starts in a more junior role and progresses through other roles. This is exactly what one would hope for and expect. Those who have a great interest step into advanced roles, and some people stay around to ensure continuity and experience. In some years just a few new people come on board, and in others the number is quite large – twelve new people in leadership roles in 2014. It is clear that there is a regular progression of new ALAC members. Some people serve for a while then come back into another leadership position some years later. There is a clear peak at two years of service in all roles combined. Rather than showing that many people stay far too long, a real problem is that too many people leave after two years. The entry for 7-9 meetings should be much higher. This sharp drop-off is symptomatic of the difficulty in really being an effective and contributing member of the community. <Charts and graphs available.> |
Possible Dependencies | The ALAC believes that the constraints around the membership of this Council, especially in relation to the rigid set of rules around how long a person could serve, how often they could travel, and the presumption that they would be endlessly available regardless of these rules, is (for some of the current “elders” around At-Large) rather laughable. |
Who Will Implement? | At-Large leadership, ICANN Staff |
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
3 Comments
Alan Greenberg
My thoughts
Status:Accept in principle??
Comment: (Nice to acknowledge those who have contributed but no current appointments. Danger of having to induct all people leaving office even if not warranted. Do we need it?) Very low priority.
Ariel Liang
ALAC comment in the ALAC Statement of the At-Large Review Draft Report
==
While the ALAC recognises the usefulness and purpose of this recommendation, the ALAC believes that the constraints around the membership of this Council, especially in relation to the rigid set of rules around how long a person could serve, how often they could travel, and the presumption that they would be endlessly available regardless of these rules, is (for some of the current “elders” around At-Large) rather laughable.
**
In the entire history of the modern ALAC (after the Interim ALAC was appointed by the Board), there have been 65 RALO and NomCom appointed ALAC members and only five of them have served for more than two consecutive terms (and two of those only exceeded the two-term point after the last AGM).
Taking this into account, term limits would not have had much impact in the past, and it is unclear if having such limits would have fixed problems, or created them. That being said, term limits may well be reasonable, but it is less clear that two terms is optimal. One RALO currently has a shorter limit, and others may feel that in critical times, the limit should be able to be overridden.
**
Volunteer Turnover
The Review Team received many comments alluding to a lack of volunteer turnover, stagnant leadership, and people “clinging to power”. There is no question that such perceptions exist in the community.
Volunteer statistics tell a quite different story. They demonstrate that over the 14 years of the ALAC history, and the 10 years since the current ALAC plus RALOs have existed, there has been very abundant turnover.
To repeat and expand on the statistics reported earlier in this document, over the life of the ALAC,
Table 4 shows all ALAC Members for the period 2007-2016 who were in office for each ICANN meeting. The cell contents show who appointed the Member (the Board for early members of the Interim ALAC, the NomCom or a RALO – Empty rows are for ALAC members whose terms ended prior to RALOs being created in 2006-7)
It is clear that there is a regular progression of new ALAC members. The only RALOs with term limits for ALAC Members are LACRALO (1 term, 2 years) and NARALO (2 terms, 4 years), but it is clear that very relatively few ALAC member exceed stay beyond two terms.
Table 5 combines service on the ALAC, as a RALO leader (Chair, Vice-Chair or Secretariat), Liaison to another AC/SO or service as a NomCom Delegate since the start of the Interim ALAC in 2003. This chart too shows a constant stream of new people entering into these leadership positions. Many stay just for a single terms, some for a more extended period, and a few for relatively long periods. Often, a person starts in a more junior role and progresses through other roles. This is exactly what one would hope for and expect. Those who have a great interest step into advanced roles, and some people stay around to ensure continuity and experience. In some years just a few new people come on board, and in others the number is quite large – twelve new people in leadership roles in 2014.
Table 5 shows the distribution of how long people stay. Note that the specific meetings referred to in “Number of Meetings” are not necessarily contiguous. As can be seen in Table 4, some people serve for a while then come back into another leadership position some years later.
There is a clear peak at two years. Rather than showing that many people stay far too long, this chart shows that a real problem is that too many people leave after two years. The entry for 7-9 meetings should be much higher. This sharp drop-off is symptomatic of the difficulty in really being an effective and contributing member of the community.
Vanda Scartezini
Council of Elders was also suggested by Mediation experts to LACRALo and we are implementing such Council. I believe this can be beneficial in each Ralo to help new comers to easily be engage, get more clear explanation to clarify their doubts and be encouraged to continue its initial work.