Page History

...

Hi everyone.. I am having problems getting into the comments boxes below.  Many thanks to you all for your valuable contributions. 

Fouad Bajwa (28/11/13)

I believe one of the most important metrics component should be built on the fact that if a member suggests something, how many of those suggestions were actually accepted and incorporated into the system. One small example is that I've proposed individual membership in the past during 2010, created the paperwork suggesting the policy reform in the APRALO articles, presented it and then silence. This would have enhanced participation, inclusion of more productive talent and people that are sensitive about ICANN and IG related issues. Such talent thus has to move under a narrower scope into the ncuc/ncsg and APRALO loses out.

Somehow the belief that only groups can represent the rights of the users is a fantasy. For example, in the technical community and most in ISOC circles, most of the members in a recognized ALS are not actually CS or information rights activists but people with corporate day jobs and of companies that actually should fall under contracted parties ac/oc's in ICANN. The value that comes into such an organizational system are actually the members, the system itself cannot come up with ideas and transform the ideas into workable actions.

Participation collapses when member ideas are not viewed as valuable input and organizations that don't believe in agility to change and adapt to round the clock innovation and improvements basically fall short on rationality for existence and support in the future. If the participation in meetings and tele-cons are an evaluative criteria for calculating value for money, something is seriously wrong with ICANN and the people who are attempting to address such issues by adopting such a weak and lame course of action. 

 KPIs are measured against activities and participation in telecons and meetings are not such an input or expected outcome. The indicators can be established on a the basis of number of members present and number of comments, suggestions and recommendations received during any calls/meetings and the actions were taken on them. The second level would be number of policy comments requested by ICANN and the number of members that voted on them, the time taken to make comments or recommendations, total number of policy requests for comments and number of comments made to policy requests. 

Its actually a very simple and straightforward thing. List down all the things that ALAC and its members do. Against those activities a scorecard can be developed and bench-marked against other AC/OC work. I'll think more about this.

Rinalia Abdul Rahim (27/11/13)

Hello everyone.

I like Ali's input on metrics about leadership of Working Groups for ALAC members. I would also suggest co-chairing of WG between an ALAC Member and an At-Large community member. This will help build collaborative skills and capacity along the way.

...