Participants: Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Damian Narinesingh, Sylvia Herlein-Leite, Roosevelt King, Cintra Sooknanan, Lance Hinds,
Staff: Seth Greene, Heidi Ullrich
1. DT gave the roll call
2. Discuss proposed participation clause in the LACRALO Bylaws
DT provided background of LACRALO bylaw changes.
DT read suggested bylaw change (as posted in the chat)
DN asked for details of measurements of activity.
DT stated if an ALS is consistently inactive, then that ALS would be considered inactive. The aim is to target those ALSes that are not at all active. We need to look at those ALSes. We have an ex. of an ALS in Costa Rica that is basically defunct. The ALS rep has not communicated to the LACRALO leadership or membership.
DN: Who will be the party responsble for tracking?
DT: The Secretariat.
CS: I have a problem wth that. Tracking is too much work for the leadership and staff. Instead, we can have a two track approach. On calls and mailing list, we can easily put in place a monitoring system. Those who have not participated in one month (first tier), are notified and given a chance to be more active. We power ALSes this way. If we do not hear from them after 12 months, then we blacklist them (second tier).
DT: repeated CS's proposal
CS: After 12 months, it would be very obvious who the inactive ALSes are.
DT: That suggestion is a good one.
DN: I like it, but my concern anything that takes away some right to participate is not good. As a group, we need to make the decision.
LH: Do you think... if an ALS is deemed inactive, how is that determined? I would suggest some kind of probation period. I'm not connecting with you on putting an ALS on probation and then the following month they come back and are active.
DT: They will have 12 months to get to the heart of the issue. It will be an ongoing Action Item to get the ALS to be active again. DT gave a hypothetical example.
LH: It is simple how you explain it. I'm looking at the grounds...at notification.
DT: Typically, more than one representative per ALS.
LH: You don't want people saying we've put
HU: Need to be more specific on how an ALS will be reactivated.
CS: What is your feeling on my proposal?
LH: Discussed issue of level of activity and issue of consent by not participating.
DT: We could contact inactive ALSes and ask why they are not being active. We keep this as a permanent Ation Item. If in the the next 12 months, we decertify that ALS.
LH: You will need to
HU: Suggested a three tier traffic light approach (green, yellow, red) with template letters being sent.
CS: Agree. After 6 months of inactivity, then they get a yellow warning.
DT: Six months may be too soon.
DN: I think six months is fine.
LH: Gave ex of being in Argentina. The language of how we do this will be critcal.
CS: A number of ALS reps have been disenfranchised, so they feel it's difficult to participate; this will, then, need to work hand-in-hand with encouraging participartion and building trust.
Dev will create some flowcharts showing thinking and defining problem re participation (lax attendance, etc.). Afterwards, the group can word-smith it.
LACRALO SWOT FEEDBACK
There have been many discussions on list – which Sylvia has summarized in a Google doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12sTqGKwHCItRZvhd5saGFoZ7WWeqs0deavcNFQ5ocAM/edit?hl=en_GB&authkey=CIHLiu0C
LACRALO must submit comments on SWOTs by 22 Feb.
Dev called for any quesitons or comments on the SWOTs at this time.
Some discussion occurred regrarding points on the SWOTs already – that is, contributed by Improvements WT C.
- For ex: Under budget weaknesses, no outside funding is available (such as from ccTLDs). for ALSes' attendance at conferences, etc. Some found this point confusing. ALS could benefit if such funding were available, but it's not..
LACRALO ELECTIONS FOR TERMS ENDING IN 2011
Chair and Secretariat terms are ending this year, but the current people are willing to stand for another term.
Will need to call for candidates around September.
And there are two more LACRALO elections in 2011:
- NomCom seeking LACRALO person for ALAC.
- Sylvia's ALAC term ends.
This relates to the Geo-Regions Report's issue of regional diversity/balance.
Carribean ALSes have expressed concern that some of these elections are foregone conclusions, bec. the numbers just aren't there to change things.
- We are going to have to show participation, so that, if going to argue there is a lack of balance, you can show that those there do participate.
- Relates to long-term success of LACRALO.
Carribean members' (Cintra's) participation has recently improved (for ex, in WT C, Subcommittee of F&B, the JAS WG).
- However, this does not show increased ALS participation, since Cintra and Dev from same ALS.
Carribean participation (and appreciation) must be worked on. Problem in Carribean is that ICANN and its issues do not typically trickle down to Carribean. Now, there are nine ALSes total, with largest participataion out of Trinidad and Jamaica.
- ALSes are simply going to have to understand issues more and participate more.
- What can both staff and more active ALSes do to help less active ALSes participate more? There are different initiatives being discussed – Confluence pgs for ALSes, Adobe Connect Rms for ALSes – that can be pushed.
Two other issues that have come up, but which we won't get to in this meeting:
- A LACRALO Board; and
- Possibility of ALAC LACRALO rep being re-elected to second term (now it is not possible). If going to allow a second term, we should require a Carribean rep. next.
The LA ALSes do not understand why this is an issue for the Carribean ALSes. It would be nice if they can hear this concern from a Carribean ALS other than just Dev's and Cintra's. So other Carribean ALSes should be on tomorrow's LACRALO call to express this concern.
Dev encouraged members to look at At-Large Improvements WTs to see if they are interested in participating, even though work is coming to a very evolved stage at this point.
The meeting was adjourned.
