• No labels


  1. Comments Metrics presentation - meeting 11 March

    • Remove wording - punishment - change to consequences; remediation seen to be a more acceptable term
    • attendance alone was not an indicator of performance but regular attendance does show a commitment  and this participation needs to be acknowledged
    • Oksana has asked for measurement of the content of members' contributions for example the number of propositions that a member made in a meeting, both positive and negative, and an analysis of these. 
    • the section relating to PROBLEMS will be removed - we will keep to the constructive comments - retain "Who will manage the metrics?" because this is an important issue
    • In the slide on Recommendations - remove the last bullet point about under-performance - for the same reason as above.
    • re e-Democracy model - Tijani raised his reluctance to include feedback from RALOs
    • In the proposed model, remove the expectation of a monthly report, this could be changed to "from time to time"
    • The report would also give a social representation of ALAC members' participation and provide some transparency of their activities
    • Within their reports, the title of a WG could be hyperlinked to its Meeting summary, Action Item or Chat record page  to indicate member involvement in some significant way.  
    • The monthly report given as an example should be stated as simply a sample

    • As another example of a metric, Olivier suggested a PEER REVIEW, similar to what is used by the Board, to provide a "very thorough assessment of how one's colleagues judge participation & engagement" - perhaps discuss at the next meeting.
      • A "PEER REVIEW" was supported by Cheryl, who has a copy of the methodology model and the key questions that are deployed should we wish to use them. 

    • Further feedback from Glenn McKnight:The difficulty in metrics is interpretation of data to make a significant comment.  
      • I think it needs relevance vis-a-vis other ICANN sponsored groups etc.For example the schools in the US  have standard testing and all schools have an idea how they are doing based on other schools.  Schools with poor performance lose funding.  A real incentive to perform.
      • I don't see any carrot or stick in the metrics  Despite the issue of guilt for taking their money  I don't think any repercussions  are in the system if we don't meet the standard which is a bit loosey goosey. 

        Other metrics  that rank as important:

        -number of policy papers  impacting board decisions

        -number of new working committees impacting ICANN compliance ie.  New working group to outreach to minorities, outreach to the Disabled etc

        -positive suggestions to the strategic plan.... etc



  2. Metrics are always hard, and in the end, the important ones are subjective.  That said, attendance is an easy and ovious one.  Active participation is also important - maybe some sort of 'peer review' as suggested by OCL. Comments made on policy statements can be counted and should be on there.  There should be additional points for 'holding the pen'.  What about membership in WGs - both ALAC and other, with extra points for being chair of a group.  Another metric should be sessions initiated, organised and/or chaired in the ICANN meetings. And what about organising and publicising events within the RALO area? (not quite sure how that would work) Maybe developing and/or circulating capacity materials for the RALO/ALAC.