21.1 Delegates are expected to actively participate in all aspects of the Committee's work. This includes some qualitative commitments and quantitative requirements.
21.2 The qualitative commitments are:
21.3 Reading and commenting in the ALAC online forums;
21.4 Following the ALS certification process and, if members, voting in accreditation votes;
21.5 Participating in ALAC conference calls;
21.6 Attending physical ALAC meetings (and/or, for liaisons, meetings of the bodies to which the person is liaison) at ICANN meetings;
21.7 Providing feedback on any ICANN vs. At-Large CommunityAt-Large CommunityAt-Large Community matters/issues whenever asked to/needed;
21.8 Serving as a liaison to the public.
21.9 The quantitative requirements are:
o If members, casting a vote (including abstention) in at least 3/4 of ALS accreditation votes; AND
o Participating in at least 2/3 of the ALAC conference calls in any 6 month period; AND
o Attending at least one physical ICANN meeting in any 9 month period; AND
o Completing at least one feedback survey on At-Large CommunityAt-Large CommunityAt-Large Community issues/matters in any 6 months period.
The participation requirements set forth in this section shall be considered met if and only if the quantitative requirements stated in Rule 21.3 are met. 21.10 For ordinary ALAC members, in case of failure to meet the requirements, the Chair will privately encourage the member to resign. If this does not happen by 14 (fourteen) days from that communication, the Chair will formally notify the entity responsible for appointing the member, and a message MAY be copied to the public ALAC list, and ask that the appointment is immediately reconsidered.
I realize that the above is going to be changed - which is a good thing in my mind. After we have amended them, we need to do a few things:
1. Make sure EVERY ALS knows what their ALAC members are supposed to be doing. This has not been done yet. The ALSs are in the dark and we need to advise them of the rules that we come up with so that they can better evaluate the people that are standing for election. Also, this will serve as an enlightenment to those standing for election as to what the job really entails. I think this will make for a stronger ALAC group as a whole.
2. Performance measures: As stated on the conference call we need to do two things. We need to SOMEHOW include qualitative performance along with quantitative. Secondly, this needs to be communicated to the RALOs on a timely (monthly or, perhaps, quarterly) basis. How can our ALSs know how their reps are doing at their jobs unless the stats are put before them? Right now, its strictly the leadership positions and the ALAC who has an opinion whether the person is performing or not. So, if I think that (for a wild example that isn't true) Olivier is not doing a good job, there is nothing I can do about it because he's not part of my RALO. If this information was freely shared within HIS RALO, they may take action. I also like the idea of having a review of a person's performance, pre-election time. Of course, this will not work with those RALOs that have chosen to have their reps only on board for one term. In this case, the monthly reporting become essential to let them know what is happening (or not happening). In such a case, I would also encourage a transparent mid-term review.
3. We need to better define the ACTUAL procedures that happen when an ALAC rep is not performing. As Olivier stated in the conference today, he (and I'm very sure Cheryl before him) would have a private chat with the person before Rule 21 comes into affect. I think that needs to be written into the rules above. Right now the rules are rather rigorous and draconion.
4. I realize that we are all volunteers. However, we (for whatever insane reason) ran for the leadership or ALAC or EXCOM positions we are in. If we do not live up to the position for which we ran, we MUST be called to account in some way or form. If a private phone call doesn't remedy the situation, then the RALO's ALSs MUST be made aware so that they can take action, if they choose to do so - but the ALAC EXCOM should give the region a "heads up" as most ALSs won't even be aware that there is a problem until its too late . The action taken then may differ from region to region.
5. Going along in the same vein as #4 above, there has to be at least a "minimum acceptable job description" on each position, whether it be leadership or ALAC, for ALL regions. Each reagoin can then agree on any addition items that they think fit for the position but there should some unanimity for minimum standards for ALL regions.
a) Something needs to be corrected in the following:
"The participation requirements set forth in this section shall be considered met if and only if the quantitative requirements stated in Rule 21.3 are met"
There is no quantitative requirements in 21.3
b) I suggest we change the numbering format
21.2 The qualitative requirements are
21.2.1
21.2.2
21.2.3
21.2.4
21.2.5
21.2.6
21.3 The quantitative requirements are
21.3.1
21.3.2
21.3.3
21.3.4
c) In case we accept my numbering, the following section will be 21.4
I don't think that the chair should wait if a person is not performing then ask him to resign. My expectation is that the chair will send some "wake up" signal to the person and if necessary to his RALO chair informing about his non/non active participation. The Amessage to resign will be the last step to take.
21.4 For ordinary ALAC members, in case of failure to meet the requirements, the Chair will privately encourage the member to resign. If this does not happen by 14 (fourteen) days from that communication, the Chair will formally notify the entity responsible for appointing the member, and a message MAY be copied to the public ALAC list, and ask that the appointment is immediately reconsidered.
Just a brief comment - regarding the item labeled 21.4 above - my understanding was that the Metrics group was not to focus on the remedy, but rather to just set the targets.
Well, to have performance metrics in place with no remedy seems to be a rather pointless effort, in my mind. In the corporate world, if a board member is not performing their responsibilities, the rest of the board will step in or have it in their by-laws to bring it to the attention of the shareholders. In this case, I agree with Yaovi, that the non-performing ALAC member be given a head's-up to try to encourage performance improvement before the Chair is required to take action. But SOME form of action has to be decided here or else this is a futile exericise. Just my opinion.
Ah. We just had this point clarified today in the Metrics WG telephone conference. The remedy will be discussed by the Rules of Procedures group - the Metrics group is strictly for, well - METRICS! LOL - I now agree with Alan.
I don't know what the "vs" means in 21.7, and all of the possible interpretations I can come up with are intriguing, particularly because of the triple replication of At-Large Community but probably not relevant.
I believe that 21.8 (liaison to the public) should be deleted. I am not at all sure that this is EVERY ALAC member's responsibility, nor do I understand how we could ever get a real measure of it - even in the context of a qualitative requirement.
I can understand "participating in ALAC conference calls" being quantitative, but shouldn't Liaisons attending meetings of the other group be quantitative?
For the "qualitative" requirements:
I would remove the absolute "minimums" and replace it with an expected norm (set pretty high) and a "trigger" point which will be an indication that something might be wrong.
I think the "complete survey" requirements is silly, but should be replaced with a qualitative requirement to participate in ALAC/ICANN activities (which should be defined as WGs, etc). If surveys are even mentioned (which I suggest not), it should be a minor reference, since I cannot remember one.
I really think that we should make a requirement that ALAC member participate in at least one other (preferably policy development) activity outside of At-Large. Even if not required, needs to be measured/logged and factored into any overall evaluation.
Creo que el proceso que hay que realizar de informe de actuación de los ALAC Member se deben de medir objetivos cuantificables, los cuales deben de medir requisitos mínimos de participación ( leo lo de Alan y no entiendo por que el quiere cambiar algo que es totalmente comprensible como el termino "mínimo" y que no llevara a equívocos ni discusiones sobre su interpretación), el procedimiento no debe de ninguna manera superar el poder de los RALOS, esto lo indico como una norma aplicable a cualquier resolución que tome el ALAC, estos deben de ser consejos e informes de desempeño de los ALAC Member para la región, pero de ninguna manera puede tener ALAC mas poder que el que tiene la propia región para elegir sus representantes.El proceso que se deberia dar en este marco es el siguiente:
1.- Envío de informe cuatrimestral de la actuación de los Alac Member al presidente y secretario de la región con el pedido de hacerlo publico en la región
2.- Una vez que no se llegue al mínimo de actuación de un ALAC Member se debe de informar al presidente y secretario de la actuación anómala del mismo.
3.- Una vez que suceda esto, se debe de mantener una conversación con el ALAC Member (presidente y secretario de ALAC) a fin de que deponga su actitud de no participación dentro de ALAC o que presente descargos de su actuación.
4.- si el ALAC Member no llega al mínimo de participación esperada por dos períodos consecutivos y habiendo pasado el proceso de conversación de las autoridades de ALAC con el miembro, se elevara un informe al presidente y secretario de la región con el informe y se anunciara una ultima reunión con el Alac member a fin de que presente su renuncia al cargo.
5.- Si el ALAC Member no renuncia, el secretario y presidente del RALO deberán enviar a la región una consulta sobre el apoyo o no de proseguir con esta representación.
I think the process to be performed to report performance of ALAC Member in this process should be quantifiable measure, which should be minimum requirements for participation (read what Alan and I do not understand that he wants to change something that is completely understandable as the term "minimal" and not misleading or lead discussions on their interpretation), the procedure should not in any way to overcome the power of RALOS, this was indicated as a standard for any decision taken by the ALAC these should be tips and reports performance of ALAC Member for the region, but by no means ALAC may have more power than the region itself have to choose their representantes.El process that should be taken in this context is the following:
A. - Submitting quarterly report of the actions of Member Alac the president and secretary of the region in order to go public in the region
2. - Once is not reached the minimum performance of ALAC Member must inform the president and secretary of the abnormal performance of it.
3. - Once this happens, you should have a conversation with the ALAC Member (president and secretary of ALAC) in order to abandon its attitude of non-participation in ALAC or present releases of their performance.
4. - If the Member ALAC does not reach the minimum expected participation for two consecutive periods and having gone through the process of discussion of the authorities of the ALAC member, raised a report to the president and secretary of the region with the report and announced a final meeting with the Alac member to submit his resignation.
5. - If the ALAC Member does not withdraw, the secretary and chairman of RALO the region should send a query on support or not to continue with this representation
May I have your permission to take your wording and use it in the Rules of Procedure Working Group since they are the ones that will be discussing the "remedy"?
Me puede dar supermiso parallevar a suredaccióny lo utilizanen las Reglas deProcedimientodel Grupode Trabajo, ya queson los quese debatiránel "remedio"?
Yaovi, Since there are two ALAC members selected by RALO, that would mean, in theory, replicated reports. Is that really what we want? Perhaps alternate?
Regarding frequency, perhaps better to be synchronized with ICANN meetings?
Alan, you raised an important point. AfRALO asks ALAC members to report on ALAC activities during our monthly call. There is no formal indication about who should talk and the two members are mentionned on the agenda. Generally one of the member start and the second completes. I think the ALAC chair will get a feedback from the RALO about the reporting from the two members.
I am not sure if ALAC can say how these two members should report to their RALO but the most important for me is to have the requirement that an ALAC member from a RALO should be reporting on ALAC activities to the RALO.
but the most important for me is to have the requirement that an ALAC member from a RALO should be reporting on ALAC activities to the RALO.
I'm not sure if that is most important (perhaps having the ALAC member also do some work is important as well), but it is hard to disagree with you this this is a mandatory part of an ALAC member's responsibilities.
Creo que no estaría mal poner esto que señala Yaovi, entre otros de las actividades que tiene que hacer un ALAC Member, los ALAC Member deben de ponerse de acuerdo para dar los informes de las reuniones de ALAC en su RALO, como así también confeccionar los informes de los Meeting a los que concurren.
Creo que es necesario poner como mínimo requisito mensual que se deben de dar estos informes (quizás con la firma de los dos?), por que esto indudablemente también podría ser un elemento a tener en cuenta en lo que respecta a "Metricas"; en este punto quizás tenga que ver con el desempeño "grupal" de los ALAC Member del RALO y no particularmente con el desempeño individual de ellos, pero todo nos puede llevar a tener una idea global del desempeño de ellos.
I thinkitwould be nicetoYaovipointing, amongotheractivitiesto doan ALACMember,theALACMembermustagree toprovidereportsALACmeetingsinRALO, as well asmaketheMeetingreports ofthose whoattend.
I think we needto puta minimummonthlyrequirementshould be given inthese reports (perhaps with thesigning of the two?), Because thiscertainlycould alsobe a factor tobe considered inregard to"Metric", inthis pointmay have todo with performance"group"of theALACMemberofRALOand not particularlywiththeir individualperformance, but allwecan lead toan overall ideaofperforming them.
17 Comments
Darlene Thompson
I realize that the above is going to be changed - which is a good thing in my mind. After we have amended them, we need to do a few things:
1. Make sure EVERY ALS knows what their ALAC members are supposed to be doing. This has not been done yet. The ALSs are in the dark and we need to advise them of the rules that we come up with so that they can better evaluate the people that are standing for election. Also, this will serve as an enlightenment to those standing for election as to what the job really entails. I think this will make for a stronger ALAC group as a whole.
2. Performance measures: As stated on the conference call we need to do two things. We need to SOMEHOW include qualitative performance along with quantitative. Secondly, this needs to be communicated to the RALOs on a timely (monthly or, perhaps, quarterly) basis. How can our ALSs know how their reps are doing at their jobs unless the stats are put before them? Right now, its strictly the leadership positions and the ALAC who has an opinion whether the person is performing or not. So, if I think that (for a wild example that isn't true) Olivier is not doing a good job, there is nothing I can do about it because he's not part of my RALO. If this information was freely shared within HIS RALO, they may take action. I also like the idea of having a review of a person's performance, pre-election time. Of course, this will not work with those RALOs that have chosen to have their reps only on board for one term. In this case, the monthly reporting become essential to let them know what is happening (or not happening). In such a case, I would also encourage a transparent mid-term review.
3. We need to better define the ACTUAL procedures that happen when an ALAC rep is not performing. As Olivier stated in the conference today, he (and I'm very sure Cheryl before him) would have a private chat with the person before Rule 21 comes into affect. I think that needs to be written into the rules above. Right now the rules are rather rigorous and draconion.
4. I realize that we are all volunteers. However, we (for whatever insane reason) ran for the leadership or ALAC or EXCOM positions we are in. If we do not live up to the position for which we ran, we MUST be called to account in some way or form. If a private phone call doesn't remedy the situation, then the RALO's ALSs MUST be made aware so that they can take action, if they choose to do so - but the ALAC EXCOM should give the region a "heads up" as most ALSs won't even be aware that there is a problem until its too late . The action taken then may differ from region to region.
5. Going along in the same vein as #4 above, there has to be at least a "minimum acceptable job description" on each position, whether it be leadership or ALAC, for ALL regions. Each reagoin can then agree on any addition items that they think fit for the position but there should some unanimity for minimum standards for ALL regions.
Yaovi Atohoun
a) Something needs to be corrected in the following:
"The participation requirements set forth in this section shall be considered met if and only if the quantitative requirements stated in Rule 21.3 are met"
There is no quantitative requirements in 21.3
b) I suggest we change the numbering format
21.2 The qualitative requirements are
21.2.1
21.2.2
21.2.3
21.2.4
21.2.5
21.2.6
21.3 The quantitative requirements are
21.3.1
21.3.2
21.3.3
21.3.4
c) In case we accept my numbering, the following section will be 21.4
I don't think that the chair should wait if a person is not performing then ask him to resign. My expectation is that the chair will send some "wake up" signal to the person and if necessary to his RALO chair informing about his non/non active participation. The Amessage to resign will be the last step to take.
21.4 For ordinary ALAC members, in case of failure to meet the requirements, the Chair will privately encourage the member to resign. If this does not happen by 14 (fourteen) days from that communication, the Chair will formally notify the entity responsible for appointing the member, and a message MAY be copied to the public ALAC list, and ask that the appointment is immediately reconsidered.
Alan Greenberg
Just a brief comment - regarding the item labeled 21.4 above - my understanding was that the Metrics group was not to focus on the remedy, but rather to just set the targets.
Darlene Thompson
Well, to have performance metrics in place with no remedy seems to be a rather pointless effort, in my mind. In the corporate world, if a board member is not performing their responsibilities, the rest of the board will step in or have it in their by-laws to bring it to the attention of the shareholders. In this case, I agree with Yaovi, that the non-performing ALAC member be given a head's-up to try to encourage performance improvement before the Chair is required to take action. But SOME form of action has to be decided here or else this is a futile exericise. Just my opinion.
Darlene Thompson
Ah. We just had this point clarified today in the Metrics WG telephone conference. The remedy will be discussed by the Rules of Procedures group - the Metrics group is strictly for, well - METRICS! LOL - I now agree with Alan.
Alan Greenberg
First a few targeted comments.
For the "qualitative" requirements:
Sergio Salinas Porto
Creo que el proceso que hay que realizar de informe de actuación de los ALAC Member se deben de medir objetivos cuantificables, los cuales deben de medir requisitos mínimos de participación ( leo lo de Alan y no entiendo por que el quiere cambiar algo que es totalmente comprensible como el termino "mínimo" y que no llevara a equívocos ni discusiones sobre su interpretación), el procedimiento no debe de ninguna manera superar el poder de los RALOS, esto lo indico como una norma aplicable a cualquier resolución que tome el ALAC, estos deben de ser consejos e informes de desempeño de los ALAC Member para la región, pero de ninguna manera puede tener ALAC mas poder que el que tiene la propia región para elegir sus representantes.El proceso que se deberia dar en este marco es el siguiente:
1.- Envío de informe cuatrimestral de la actuación de los Alac Member al presidente y secretario de la región con el pedido de hacerlo publico en la región
2.- Una vez que no se llegue al mínimo de actuación de un ALAC Member se debe de informar al presidente y secretario de la actuación anómala del mismo.
3.- Una vez que suceda esto, se debe de mantener una conversación con el ALAC Member (presidente y secretario de ALAC) a fin de que deponga su actitud de no participación dentro de ALAC o que presente descargos de su actuación.
4.- si el ALAC Member no llega al mínimo de participación esperada por dos períodos consecutivos y habiendo pasado el proceso de conversación de las autoridades de ALAC con el miembro, se elevara un informe al presidente y secretario de la región con el informe y se anunciara una ultima reunión con el Alac member a fin de que presente su renuncia al cargo.
5.- Si el ALAC Member no renuncia, el secretario y presidente del RALO deberán enviar a la región una consulta sobre el apoyo o no de proseguir con esta representación.
Darlene Thompson
Translation (from Google Translate):
I think the process to be performed to report performance of ALAC Member in this process should be quantifiable measure, which should be minimum requirements for participation (read what Alan and I do not understand that he wants to change something that is completely understandable as the term "minimal" and not misleading or lead discussions on their interpretation), the procedure should not in any way to overcome the power of RALOS, this was indicated as a standard for any decision taken by the ALAC these should be tips and reports performance of ALAC Member for the region, but by no means ALAC may have more power than the region itself have to choose their representantes.El process that should be taken in this context is the following:
A. - Submitting quarterly report of the actions of Member Alac the president and secretary of the region in order to go public in the region
2. - Once is not reached the minimum performance of ALAC Member must inform the president and secretary of the abnormal performance of it.
3. - Once this happens, you should have a conversation with the ALAC Member (president and secretary of ALAC) in order to abandon its attitude of non-participation in ALAC or present releases of their performance.
4. - If the Member ALAC does not reach the minimum expected participation for two consecutive periods and having gone through the process of discussion of the authorities of the ALAC member, raised a report to the president and secretary of the region with the report and announced a final meeting with the Alac member to submit his resignation.
5. - If the ALAC Member does not withdraw, the secretary and chairman of RALO the region should send a query on support or not to continue with this representation
Darlene Thompson
I like Sergio's approach to this.
Sergio Salinas Porto
Thanks dear friend Darlene! keep working, we are all doing a good job on this!!!!!
Darlene Thompson
Thanks, Sergio!
May I have your permission to take your wording and use it in the Rules of Procedure Working Group since they are the ones that will be discussing the "remedy"?
Me puede dar su permiso para llevar a su redacción y lo utilizan en las Reglas de Procedimiento del Grupo de Trabajo, ya que son los que se debatirán el "remedio"?
Thank you!
Darlene
Yaovi Atohoun
A qualitative requirement for an member sent to ALAC by a RALO should be :
A quantitative aspect can be :
I don't know what to suggest for an ALAC member selected by the NOMCOM
Same view as Alan about 21.7 and 28.8
Thank you
Yaovi
Alan Greenberg
Yaovi, Since there are two ALAC members selected by RALO, that would mean, in theory, replicated reports. Is that really what we want? Perhaps alternate?
Regarding frequency, perhaps better to be synchronized with ICANN meetings?
Yaovi Atohoun
Alan, you raised an important point. AfRALO asks ALAC members to report on ALAC activities during our monthly call. There is no formal indication about who should talk and the two members are mentionned on the agenda. Generally one of the member start and the second completes. I think the ALAC chair will get a feedback from the RALO about the reporting from the two members.
I am not sure if ALAC can say how these two members should report to their RALO but the most important for me is to have the requirement that an ALAC member from a RALO should be reporting on ALAC activities to the RALO.
Thank you
Alan Greenberg
I'm not sure if that is most important (perhaps having the ALAC member also do some work is important as well), but it is hard to disagree with you this this is a mandatory part of an ALAC member's responsibilities.
Sergio Salinas Porto
Creo que no estaría mal poner esto que señala Yaovi, entre otros de las actividades que tiene que hacer un ALAC Member, los ALAC Member deben de ponerse de acuerdo para dar los informes de las reuniones de ALAC en su RALO, como así también confeccionar los informes de los Meeting a los que concurren.
Creo que es necesario poner como mínimo requisito mensual que se deben de dar estos informes (quizás con la firma de los dos?), por que esto indudablemente también podría ser un elemento a tener en cuenta en lo que respecta a "Metricas"; en este punto quizás tenga que ver con el desempeño "grupal" de los ALAC Member del RALO y no particularmente con el desempeño individual de ellos, pero todo nos puede llevar a tener una idea global del desempeño de ellos.
Darlene Thompson
Google Translate's crappy translation:
I think it would be nice to Yaovi pointing, among other activities to do an ALAC Member, the ALAC Member must agree to provide reports ALAC meetings in RALO, as well as make the Meeting reports of those who attend.
I think we need to put a minimum monthly requirement should be given in these reports (perhaps with the signing of the two?), Because this certainly could also be a factor to be considered in regard to "Metric", in this point may have to do with performance "group" of the ALAC Member of RALO and not particularly with their individual performance, but all we can lead to an overall idea of performing them.