AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large FY25 Strategic Priority Activities

  • Summary Notes and Action Items
  • Monday 30 July 2102 at 2100 UTC
  • Participants: EN: Tijani Ben Jemaa, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Roosevelt King, Darlene Thompson, Yaovi Atohoun, Holly Raiche, Alan Greenberg, Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Olivier Crépin- Leblond, ES: Sergio Salinas Porto, Sylvia Herlein, Apologies: Baudouin Schombe, Rudi Vansnick, Adetokunbo Abiola, Alejandro Pisanty Baruch, Cintra Sooknanan, Jose Arce, Maureen Hillyard
  • Staff: Heidi Ullrich, Matt Ashtiani, Nathalie Peregrine Interpreters: Veronica and David

SUMMARY NOTES

  • Welcome and Attendance were completed
  • The Summary Notes and AIs were reviewed 
  • CLO: We've looked at rule 21 and there are many others. These look into the ROP very specifically at anything they mention and see if they have a measure that we could put back into the review as a standard of measure for us to achieve as a minimum or to have expectations that are clear for people before they put  themselves into those positions. I'd like us to agree on a methodology that may be different than the one we started. While we now have the four DTs that are lookng at specific things, such as Meetings, and a whole set of other things, perhaps we should step away a bit and make some exeptions and add some metrics to those activities. Let's make a set of assumptions that says, for ex. for the ALAC members and leaders, a number of meetings will be expected to be attended. Some of these will be f-2-f and others will be on teleconferences. If we set that there are different types of meetings, then we can set some numbers on how many of these we expect them to attend. Then, we could also set them a number they NEED to attend or is there a percentage of all meetings that are held that is the metric or is there a number of meetings, perhaps three in a row, that a person should NOT be listed an apology or non-attendance or is there a number of meetings that one must or indicate an apology for before they are failing the number of meetings they attend. When I was VC of the ALAC serving under Olivier, if I were absent for 7 months, would that have been acceptable? Even if I had indicated my absence prior to these meetings? Can we make these exceptions and work on real and meaningful assumptions? I'm hoping to get clear  guidance on this now.
  • AG: We need to make it clear when we are speaking about failing metrics, we are not talking about retaliation. If we know that you are in the hospital, but you will be out and fully functioning, we might assume that is ok. I think we can diffuse a lot of the criticism of the past that failing metrics triggers an examination. Secondly, the document that I distributed around the 20 June, that list went through the review of the ROP and that might be a way forward.
  • TJB: There are a certain number of meetings that ALAC members need to attend if you wish to be a member. They have to have a reasonable reason for apologizing. However, if the apology is reasonable, then that should not be held against them.
  • CLO: That is a useful distinction. Alan, I'm seeing a critical mass of support for you suggestion.
  • SSP: I have some issues to mention when CLO spoke. My question is why do we need metrics? Non-participants...if this is the case. Two scenarios: 1) numbers - so we can qualify the officer. If yes, that would be enough to solve the issue. 2) If we are talking about ALAC members...in the ex mentioned by Alan, these apologies may be sent in an email. So in this case, we may have certain leaves...So somehow we must take into account that this core needs to take into account. We need to take this into account when discussing members. We should not only refer to members.
  • CLO: Sergio, you raised a number of important points. Namely the human as well as humane reasons. That the ALAC members carry with them the expectations of a number of other people. so it is important that we have the metrics clear.
  • AG: Raised a good question of why we need metrics. In my career, I participated in a number of groups where we never would have dawned on us to have the discussion. The reason why we are discussing the issue here is that we have had problems in the past. It may not be necessary in the future, but we have had blatant problems in the past. There are certain thresholds, certain situations, where we can say ok, but also some where we say it is not ok. These can't always be put in writing.
  • Holly Raiche: Alan pretty much covered what I wanted to say. A: you didn't show and you didn't send an apology; B - You just didn't show. We perhaps need a metric that counts the type of reason of a no-show.
  • CLO: Thanks very much for that. We do have, for almost everything we do ,a listing of who was in attendance. It makes it easy to note whether you were attending or were absent. In fact, in Australia, many groups require a listing of participation.  In some organizations in Australia, these have often been ones that work in the public interest. So, if you know you will not be able to attend a meeting or a number of meetings, the Secretary is required to note and approve your leave. This heads back to what Alan was saying.
  • YA: I would like to add my advice to the people who support the metrics. I support this. Sometimes, as volunteers, we need something behind us to make us work better. It is important that we are talking and discussing this. However, a metrics needs to take into account the diversity of the group as there are different cultures. I would like to make a comment that is important for the RALOs, sometimes people are coming to ALAC without knowing the ROPs. This is important to let them know their role and the minimum of commitment
  • CLO: Thanks. These are very exactly the sorts of comments we need.
  • OCL: I agree with everything with everything that has been said. However, I'd like to turn the tables and look at the people who ARE performing and how they feel when they do all the work. I'd like to be able to tell people know how many hours an ALAC member spends on ALAC calls.
  • TBJ: Two points. One is subjective. I don't think we need to keep doing the metrics (correct?). Let's look at CLO, if she is not performing, why she is not performing. We are not developing metrics for people who are performing,but people who are NOT performing. Second, we need to discuss replacement. I think that ALAC members are very active, however, for those people who are not, we need metrics. We need to find out why non-performers are not performing.
  • CLO: Thanks,. Tijani. I think your comments allow us to go deeper into Alan's comments. If you are not able to do 100%, there is the opportunity to apologize or simply be absent and there are repercussions. As Alan noted, a non-performer is occupying a place and space. That means a whole region may not be brought into the discussion. Cheryl gave an example.
  • SSP - This is just to respond to Tijani. This is very simple. When referring to metrics, I always refer to percentages as it is very important to discuss the numbers. Since I've been in ALAC, I'm trying to participate more than I could (confirm?)> That is why I think we should measure the participation. If we give leave, and we allow for these leave/numbers are in numbers. We should also allow RALOs to have substitute - it would be a team...how would we measure this?
  • CLO: We need to remember we have 3 - two from the RALOs, and 1 from the NomCom selected. The numbers are to ensure that you'll get at least 1 or 2 active members out of this number. That is why we need publicly available numbers/metrics. Useful to see the last two years' worth of participation. It is important to note that if a region were not going to be heard...as an example. let us think of a call that is focusing on IDNs. This topic likely doesn't mean much to NARALO members. However, if one were to have a meeting focused on that topic and it was apparent by apologies, etc that no one from APRALO or any region where IDNs are used, the resulting work may not reflect the end-user. For us to ask someone like Holly, who is a non-IDN script person, she could be a proxy from APRALO.
  • AG: I don't think we can ignore individual performance. There is an expression that says it is very hard to make something idiot proof becasue idiots are such innovative people. I wish to say that someone who always apologizing, but is still absent, they are still deadweight. Re Sergio's idea of a substitute, I think that will be challenging. Just to raise the issue, that if the person is not attending as often as they should, that flags be raised. It may be that the humans looking at it  think it is ok.
  • DT: I was thinking about Sergio's suggestion re the team approach. However, usually when a person is elected to a position, it is because the people who elected them did so because of their knowledge. I would be worried that the substitute would not be able to step in if they don't follow the previous discussions. Re the deadweight - it is not just them, but they are weighing down the groups.
  • CLO - Current elections for ALAC members - it is important to know what the positon is for. To look ahead and see your schedule, your skill set, etc for the next two years. Only then, should they accept/decline their nomination. If you think of something who has never dialed into an ALAC meeting, never gone to an ALAC meeting, one might think twice why they are interested. We need to do our best to  look at this.
  • CLO: I'd like to outline what we've agreed on and move to our wiki work. I've heard the terms like percentages used in reference to number of meetings. That the expectation  - will be a percentage. If you are only holding three meetings. and we need to figure out if we work on a FY or a calendar year, that you need to attend all but 80%. What would happen is one was point to the ALAC via NARALO or the NomCom.
  • CLO: What would happen if the Chair of the ALAC decided to have four calls a month? This is a possibility and it is one that we need to be mindful of.
  • TBJ: Firstly, I think that we have to seperate the ALAC Meetings from the WG Meetings and SC Meetings. The Metrics for the ALAC Meetings has to be set for those specific meetings, not for all meetings in general. Secondly, I do not think that someone with a willingness to serve will be seen as a bad perfromer.
  • CLO: I agree with you fully. Indeed, this is another situation whereby we need to ensure that our metrics are clearly put in with the language that the RoPs will be putting together. We probably need to have a hierarchy and/or ranking when we talk about meetings. ALAC Meetings vs. SC Meetings vs. WG Meetings. Perhaps we need to rank specific WGs with specific metrics and expectations.
  • AG: Let's be careful not to over-engineer this. We really care if people are being productive, contributing, and attending meetings. We are dealing with a range of performance that has several ranges of magnitude. Let's try to not over-engineer this issue.
  • CLO: There seems to be quite a bit of agreement with this statement.
  • TBJ: We need to specify which metrics hold more weight. For example, an ALAC Member missing an ALAC meeting has more magnitude than an ALAC Member missing a WG meeting.  We have to develop metrics for the ALAC and other metrics for the other initiatives.
  • YA: I would like to also add that it is important to seperate ALAC meeting and other meetings. However, it is useful to have a unified metric.
  • DT: Every ALAC member should be taking a leadership role in other EGs then this rule needs to contract. I also agree with ALAC regarding over engineering but we need a well thought outr system.
  • CLO: To be clear, if one says one will do something, one must do it.
  • YA: If you want to be a member of a group sub-group. We need to separate the ALAC and other meetings. At the same time, we need to measure. I could put my name in 10 WGs, and not do any work. We need to count the ALAC meetings and WG/SCs separately.
  • CLO: We are at a point where we can consolidate. We can quite reasonably measure things.   Active participation and contribution - that is the one we need to think about for our next meeting. Is how we approach the more qualitative measures. If we see metrics as measures, and we know what makes an effective leader, how do we react when a good leader becomes dead weight. It comes to us at this point how we are going to create some text for our next meeting.
  • AG: I was looking for some clarity. As we have DTs for the ROP WG, I assume that holding the pen for this group...includes what we wish to put metrics on. We are not going to draft the actual rule.
  • CLO: Yes. Alan, I would like you, the Metrics SC... that ROP WG would draft some rules for 'thou shalt', I'd like to think we can do a bit better than that. Do we go for just a percentage measure or do we go for 100% expectation and apologies.
  • AG: If all we're going to do is the former, I think we've already decided that. Somewhere in the overall doc we are producing, we will need to say that 'here is the number of meetings we expect you to participate in". If this group doesn't do that, then who will?
  • TBJ: I'm for the second option that AG gave.
  • CLO: I'm sure none of you will be surprised to hear that I would like simple, very lean rules and that all the expansive bits, wherever possible, are in some supplementary space. Alan, I think we are all in agreement with you. We now need to look at what we are going to put on our wiki and what we are going to pen and what we would like to see.
  • CLO: I'd like to also do a glossary. Recently at the regional IGF - new term - volunhold...I'm going to volunteer some people. I'd like to see comments from pen holders - Yaovi or Tijani, Natalia or Sergio, Holly, Maureen, Darlene
  • AG: the documents were sent to the list and on the wiki.
  • AI: New page posted on wiki space for Alan's doc with attachments
  • DT: I can't do a whole lot of writing at the moment.
  • CLO: Like Alan, you can act in editorial mode. If possible could you put your hand on another NARALO member and ask them to controbute. I would like a cross rgeional input here.
  • I am aware of a dirth, bar Olivier; of a European view. Olivier, may I as you to gather comme,ts from EURALO leadership?
  • OCL: Yes
  • TBJ: I think that the starting doc could be done by you, Cheryl and you could thejn make some initial changes
  • CLO: Two AIs:
  • AI: A wiki page that is currently for the is group. We need a child page form that page for the repository of the drafing of the metrics that discussed during this meeting. Cut and paste from material that Alan has previously distributed and then send hte link out to theis group so that everyone knows where to add their comemnts.
  • AI: The RALO , esp NARALO and EURALO, will be putting forward some people to ensure that the regional voice is being heard.
  • AI: The link that Dev has listed on false metrics is to be added to the new page.
  • Next Call: The next call should be only 60 minutes.
  • AI: The meeting confirmation - date/time  will be sent to the group. There may be some slight adjustment in the time to allow more people to attend (two or three hours earlier)
  • No labels