Independent Examiner’s Final Recommendation | ALAC should adopt a set of metrics that are consistent for the entire At-Large Community to measure the implementation and impact of the EMM and track the continuous improvement in the performance of the At-Large Community. |
Issue Identified | Absence of consistent performance metrics. |
Does ALAC Support Recommendation? | Support with qualification As the ALAC is explicitly rejecting the EMM model, there is no plan to monitor its performance. However, the ALAC does support the establishment of metrics to track performance and improvement of the At-Large Community. |
If Not, Please Provide Reasoning. | Not Applicable |
If ALAC Does Not Support Recommendation, Does It Suggest an Alternative Recommendation? If so, please provide a suggested alternative Recommendation. | Not Applicable |
Prioritization | Low Priority |
At-Large Comments | The ALAC already define a set of metrics for performance for ALAC Members. The ALAC also has an activity to develop metrics for other volunteers and community members. This activity was largely put on hold during the IANA Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability efforts. There is also an ongoing activity to establish criteria for ALS performance. Establishing metrics for RALO leadership is potentially more problematic as it is not clear that the ALAC has the authority to act in this area. At-Large has a Metrics WG (one of the groups recommended to be abolished) that has been tasked precisely with that responsibility. Although consistency is important, there are also significant differences between the regions and any discussion of metrics needs to factor that in. |
Possible Dependencies | The Metrics WG is currently on hold pending the completion of the ALS and RALO Criteria and Expectations Task Force. |
Who Will Implement? | ALAC SubCommittee on Metrics, RALOs |
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
6 Comments
Alan Greenberg
My thoughts
Status: Accept with qualification
Comment: The ALAC already define a set of metrics for performance for ALAC Members. The ALAC also has an activity to develop metrics for other volunteers and community members. This activity was largely put on hold during the IANA Stewardship and CCWG-Accountability efforts. There is also an ongoing activity to establish criteria for ALS performance. As the ALAC is explicitly rejecting the EMM model, there is no plan to monitor its performance.
Glenn McKnight
Status Accept
Comments
The devil is in the details on the tracking mechanism and what is being measured. We lack clear reporting on improvements and organizational efficiency. Clear and consistent deliverables and benchmarks are needed.
Ariel Liang
ALAC comment in the ALAC Statement on the At-Large Review Draft Report
==
As noted elsewhere, the ALAC does not support implementation of the EMM. However, the ALAC does support the establishment of metrics to track performance and improvement of the At-Large Community. In fact, we have a Metrics WG (one of the groups recommended to be abolished) that has been tasked precisely with that responsibility. It is currently on hold pending the completion of the ALS and RALO Criteria and Expectations Task Force. Although consistency is important, there are also significant differences between the regions and any discussion of metrics needs to factor that in.
Holly Raiche
Yes, we had a metrics program - which we need to both update and then report against. Quoting Glenn, clear and consistent deliverables are what is needed. some metrics are easy - participating in call, voting, holding thee pen. And - agea ago - we all submitted reports on the meetings we attended at ICANN meetings. Time to revisit the metrics, revise them, and then report on them
Aida Noblia
In order to establish the implementation timeline, it is necessary to know how long the ALS and RALO criteria and expectations working group will finish its work and how long the metric group will finish its in each RALO.
This must be determined before 6 August ! We need to ask this question to each RALO already . Timeline for response is before August 6
Vanda Scartezini
accept the need for metrics and it is high priority in my view.
in many other points in this review I, personally, and many other colleagues have state such need and made suggestions on how to proceed to define adequate metrics for At LArge.
this, in my view shall be priority 1