Click here to download the final version published on 12 October 2009 incorporating the comments made on the Draft Resolution.
---Earlier Drafting of PD Documentation---
Position Description for ALAC Members and ALAC Liaisons
1.0 Nominees for membership in the At-Large Advisory Committee, as well as those seeking a position as an ALAC Liaison, should be accomplished persons of integrity, objectivity, sound judgment and intelligence who have:
> 1.1 A commitment to ICANN's mission and its core values as expressed in the ICANN Bylaws;
> 1.2 An understanding of the potential impact of ICANN decisions on the global Internet-using community, and the Internet end-user community in particular.
> 1.3 An understanding of the Domain Name System (DNS) and the basics of IP addressing. This is not to say that candidates should be technical DNS experts, but a minimal understanding of the DNS is needed to effectively function on the ALAC. For example, candidates for the ALAC should know the answer to a question such as "Do you know what happens in the DNS when you send an email, or access a webpage?" This requires an understanding of the general process of name resolution.
> 1.4 Demonstrated capacity for thoughtful group decision-making and sound judgment, and a track record of working to build consensus with a diverse set of interests working together on complex policy issues.
> 1.5 ALAC members and liaisons, along with the At-Large community of which it is a part, are charged with representing the interests of the entire 1.5 billion Internet end-users of the world in ICANN’s processes. As a result, candidates for ALAC membership or a liaison post should have a demonstrated capacity to represent the views of others effectively, and generally refrain from advocating in support of personal opinions.
> 1.6 The ability to effectively chair meetings and provide leadership and support for work teams or committees.
> 1.7 A willingness to serve as a volunteer, without compensation other than the reimbursement of certain expenses.
> 1.8 In accordance with the recent ALAC review recommendations as adopted by the ICANN Board, members of ALAC must have proficiency in written and spoken English to allow the committee to function effectively and to allow ALAC members to interact effectively within the overall ICANN environment.
Time Commitment and Working Practice
2.0 Membership in the At-Large Advisory Committee is a substantial commitment of one’s time as a volunteer. The basic responsibilities of an ALAC member involve a minimum of 25 hours per month on core Committee related activities.
2.1 Additionally, each ALAC member leads, co-leads, or participates in one or more working groups on policy issues, which will involve an additional average 10 hours per month in reading documents, drafting proposed responses, and attending teleconferences and participating in email and other electronic correspondence related to those working groups.
2.2 The ALAC has minimum participation requirements that all members are expected to meet, and members’ participation statistics are published for the At-Large community and the rest of ICANN to review. Expectations for participation include the following:
> 2.3 Attend and actively participate in monthly ALAC teleconferences, not missing more than one-third of these meetings in any rolling six-month period;
> 2.4 Participate actively in policy issues and other working groups. Each ALAC member is expected to help lead at least one working group composed of members of At-Large working on policy issues. A current listing of working group and the remit of each may be found at http://st.icann.org/working-groups.
> 2.5 Voting regularly in ALAC ballots on various subjects (at a minimum, in ¾ of all ballots conducted). ALAC vote results are published and publication includes a record of how each member voted, excepting where the balloting relates to election of ALAC officers or liaisons.
> 2.6 Attend ICANN's three face-to-face meetings each year, which generally run about 7 days with Committee members having extensive responsibilities on most days. It is understood that events may transpire to prevent attendance in person from time to time, in which case participation remotely via two-way telephonic links is strongly encouraged. There may occasionally be additional face-to-face interim meetings or regional meetings.
> 2.7 Reading and commenting in At-Large’s mailing lists and other communications media.
> 2.8 For elected ALAC members, participation at monthly teleconferences and intercessional activities of the At-Large community in the region that elected him or her is expected. For Nominating Committee-appointed ALAC members, participation in the monthly teleconferences and intercessional activities of the region the ALAC member was appointed by the NomCom for is expected.
> 2.9 ALAC Liaisons are expected to attend and participate in ALAC meetings, provide updates on their activities as liaisons, attend the meetings of the body they are a liaison to (the “receiving body”), participate effectively as an advocate for At-Large in the receiving body, and where necessary propose responses from the ALAC to the receiving body on policy or other questions.
Comments from Alan Greenberg
2.0 It should be made clear that this time commitment is over and above the requirement to attend the three ICANN meetings per year.
We also need to add that teleconferences include participants from all of ICANN’s regions, and as such will inevitably occur during working hours for some ALAC members, and during evening or early morning hours for others. Although attempts are made to lessen this impact, ALAC members should be reasonably flexible regarding scheduling of conference calls given reasonable advance notice.
2.3 My inclination is to remove the second phrase. It almost gives people permission to miss 1/3, and that is not the message that we wish to send. We can still flag people in the reports who exceed some threshold.
2.4 I would replace “is expected to” with “will typically”. Also I question whether we have enough ongoing WG to have everyone do this. I guess I would prefer a more general statement about working on ALAC and other ICANN WG and taking a lead position in at least one. But since "being a WG member" often is nothing more than subscribing to a mailing list, we need to have some words that imply real participation.
2.5 Again, I would remove the explicit target.
2.7 I would say "ALAC and At-Large mailing lists".
2.8 I would suggest that for NomCom appointed ALAC members, the RALO activities are optional but highly recommended.
contributed by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2009-07-28 04:01:17 GMT
Comments from Evan Leibovitch
I agree with Alan's comments about removing explicit measurement-based performance targets; that is not the point of this document.
I disagree strongly with Alan on 2.4 and 2.8 and request the original wording be maintained as-is.
- On 2.4: there is plenty of work for WGs to do... arguably an ExecComm wouldn't need to exist if administrative working groups did their jobs adequately. Likewise there is plenty of policy work that doesn't get done because we don't have working groups to follow the issues. We need ALAC to maintain the momentum created at the Summit and the original wording of 2.4 does that. In fact, given the choice I would strengthen, so that each ALAC member is assigned to report to ALAC meetings on the activities of a designated liaison or working group.
- On 2.8: A NomComm ALAC appointee may not be accountable to their region but they should be expected to be aware of their region's concerns and priorities. It is reasonable to demand their presence at RALO meetings.
contributed by email@example.com on 2009-07-28 06:27:00
Section 1. Suggest moving 1.5 to the first entry: ALAC's first commitment is to the individual Internet user. Core duty of ALAC should be to ensure that individual Internet users have a voice in ICANN. We should be making effort or ensure the ALS/RALO model functions, that individual users are informed of ICANN activities and have opportunity to contribute to those activities.
Section 2, time commitment: general comment:
At a rough estimate, the total time commitment suggested is about 70 working days each year (at 8 hours/day: 25 hours/month, plus an additional 10 hours/month highly likely, plus 3 meetings which including travel will average at around 8-9 days ... not counting any recovery time for jet lag, and not including any regional meetings, etc).
First, this is too much for any voluntary position.
Second, if this is what an ALAC member needs to do then the model of individual/ALS/RALO/ALAC/ICANN Community has failed. We are not the representatives of 1.5 billion people... we attempt to ensure that the views of individual Internet users as expressed through the ALS/RALO structure are represented in ICANN.
About Alan's comments: agree with 2.0 (other than concern the commitment is too much), 2.4, 2.7. 2.3 and 2.5, I think we need to indicated some performance measure, but perhaps the actual % can be in a separate document. 2.5, suggest change the first sentence to "Vote in ALAC ballots to adopt policy statements and other work of the ALAC, and the elections of officers and other positions."
2.8 Agree with Evan. I joined as a NomCom appointee with the expectation I would participate as the paragraph describes.
contributed by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2009-07-28 09:31:54 GMT
Agree with Alan on most comments. WRT 2.8, it is indeed nice if the nomcom-selected members participates in the RALO, but that should not be compulsory.
Agree with Alan on the need to inform on the schedule of teleconference, but would suggest to spell out explicitly that it is at 14UTC every last Tuesday of the month. This could be problematic for some people if they find out too late.
Agree with Adam that we do not represent 1.5bn people. This is either arrogant or naive, depending on one's view.
Agree with Adam on expected time commitments and that we should move KPIs to another document.
2.5 Voting regularly in ALAC ballots is only for ALAC members, not for the board liaison. We might want to state it explicitly.
I would add a 2.10 bullet about advocating At-large positions in other fora. The current description is entirely ALAC-centric. We need people who talk about At-Large also outside the ICANN environment. This is another way to recruit.
contributed by email@example.com on 2009-07-28 12:40:10 GMT
I agree with Evan's perspective right down the line.
I take Adam's perspective that expectation of a 70 day/year voluntary commitment could be problematic and needs revision. In fact, if one calculated and quantified the time to read and understand documents so you can make sensible interventions in his projections, that number could easily double! If you work at a FT job that is a helluva lot of volunteering to do. Vacation days are almost always invested as common public goods; I know because I have to use my vacation days to attend ICANN meetings. I have always believe that the way to address the time commitment is to cherry-pick our issues and battles.
Labeling is important to selling. So while I understand the instinct to label ALAC as representing 1.5Bn Internet users, I agree with Patrick that taking this seriously could be construed as arrogant or naive, depending.
contributed by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2009-07-29 15:22:16 GMT
Some additional thoughts.
1.5 I agree with Adam that this should be moved up. Although the wording does not say that we represent 1.5 billion users (as suggested in Patrick's comments), but rather that we represent their interest, I agree that the statement is a bit much. I would certainly omit the number: it is time sensitive, and the accuracy of it at any point in time is actually highly questionable.
Section 2 - workload. I agree that when you add up the numbers, it is too large, but We do need to put something there. What? I note that in the current NomCom documentation, it gives 18 hours per month with more for those who are Liaisons and this is clearly excluding the 3 ICANN meetings. For another slant on it, the current NomCom specs for the GNSO say:
> The basic responsibilities of a GNSO Council member involve a minimum of 20 hours per month on Council related activities, with those chairing or participating in committees or task forces spending up to 60 hours a month or more. Depending on work load, for example during the weeks before the 3 face to face meeting, this can sometimes escalate to as much as 20 hours per week or more. The commitment for the 3 face to face meetings generally run about 7 days with council members having sometimes extensive responsibilities on most days. For those involved in Task forces or Working Groups, there may occasionally be additional face to face interim meetings.
Regarding the timing of meetings, I agree with Patrick that putting this somewhere would be useful. Not sure it belongs in the JD, and perhaps it needs to be either floating or decided upon each year depending on the specifics of the participants.
2.4 (lead WGs) I still feel that we would be better off here using less specific terms and sending the message that we expect work. Regarding Evan's comment about administrative WGs. This might be correct, but the current 2.4 only talks about Policy WG - in my mind, it should be expanded. But at a higher level, not everyone is a leader and we are looking for productivity, not just the number of WGs we have.
2.5 I agree with Adam's wording on voting.
2.8 (NomCom appointees working with their RALO). I can accept either version. Having served on the NomCom, Adam's comment is interesting (that he expected to have to participate in RALO activities). A quick question to the current NomCom chair about whether she thinks it is reasonable might reinforce one position or the other.
2.10 (Patrick's suggestion that all ALAC members must be At-Large advocates). I guess I don't really agree. Some people are good at this and feel comfortable, others not. I don't think that we should list this as a responsibility but perhaps a useful attribute.
contributed by email@example.com on 2009-07-29 18:56:17 GMT
I agree with Evan's comments right down the line.
contributed by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2009-08-10 20:31:38 GMT
I strongly agree with Evan's comment specially in relation with job and obligations of Nom Comm appointees.
measurements based targets must be removed, in my opinion is useless how have being expresssed.
Also I think we represent the end users interests, not 1.5 Bn. people.
And finally I disagree with the existence of Ex Com (I ratified my position that I have already expressed repeatedly times). At this point we need to find another way to administrate ALAC, and not with an "the facto" body.
contributed by email@example.com on 2009-08-13 13:52:46 GMT
I am basically in agreement with Evan's position, although I also agree with Adam's and Carleton's comments about work load and the need to "cherry pick"
contributed by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2009-08-13 22:54:36 GMT
Someone said "I agree with Evan's comments right down the line." on Aug 10 at 4:31 pm.
Can that someone please say who they are?
contributed by email@example.com on 2009-08-17 18:02:49 GMT
I think it should be a requirement for board liaison candidacy that the candidate be an active member of ALAC, whether non comm appointed or not. Also the language in here pertaining to the appropriate representation of ALAC opinions is not strong enough. The board liaison position is not an opportunity for somebody to get access to the board in order to put forward his or her personal views about ICANN policy matters.
contributed by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2009-08-24 13:49:47 GMT