1. Staff gave the roll call.
2. Continuation from last call on Review of any and all existing Metrics and expectations from ALAC Rules of Procedure and other Regional and ICANN documentation / agreements
CLO: Will begin from where we left off, but will first go back for a quick review of the previous call. On today's call on the wiki, there are several live links to the ROPs that we've gone through and identified as interactive with some form of metrics. Looking at those links may help you in our discusison today. I hope to break you up into sub-teams today.
CLO reviewed the Summary minutes from 14 May.
We decided last time that the rules for the liaisons will be reviewed as well. We will focus on ALAC issues. Also will look at the Liaisons to the AC/SOs as well as those to the Liaisons to ALAC WGs. So for ex. if you are apointed a liaison to a WG or an AC/SO, there will be expectations. We will be looking at that. There will be a layered approach, but there are to be a set of expectations from the ALAC side. They expect them to participate. With a level of measurement, there should also be some form of redress ability. Therefore, we will need to dovetail the expectations that the At-Large community has if you don't keep up with them. At the moment, the ROPs only focus on the recall for ALAC members, but they also need to be for nominees from the NomCom as well as a formalized system of redress which is repatriation and re-training happens before recall. That needs to go back to the ROP WG.
AG: Two things. The second is to what extent is this SC responsible for those that don't follow the expecations that this SC sets..
CLO: didn't capture. due to busy signal.
AG: First point - we are looking at two things - one is what are we measuring. The second, is what are the expectations. I think we want to include the more fuzzy things.
CLO: Good point. I'd like to first check with the SC. Changing the ROP.
AG: I think it is reasonable that as the SC that as we work on the metrics, we work on these things that you don't necessarily measure but monitor.
CLO: Similar to a shopping cart that may have large as well as small things in them.
TBJ: I think that the work of this SC is absolutely separated from the ROP WG. We are working on things that the ROP will need to incorporate. At what level do we need to plac the bar. The results of this SC will be used by the ROP WG.
CLO: Excellent. I'd like to ask the ROP WG the recommendation from this SC that while this SC will be developign the metris, it would be good if the ROP WG would consider changing the rules that have sub-rules. To give you an idea, what I'd like to have the this group suggest to the ROP - is that we have a set of general procedures, they are criteria that we believe are ideal for people who put themselves forward to represent the ALAC and At-Large - a set of core expectations. Then there is another set that if you are a liaison. Another for the ExCom. Partition it up that way. Currently, the UNWG rules, are not well suited to volunteerism..
TBJ: CLO talked about ideal criteria. Yes. But we also need to define the minium criterial. So why do we have this WG and that of the ROP. We need criteria, minimal involvement which is compulsory.
CLO: As AG was indicating, there will be a range of things. Some will be critical, some less critical. How we measure them have to be carefully define. There will also be a core set of criteria that are mandatory.
TBJ: Ok. Thank you.
CLO: So as we go through the rules, we need to define them as mandatory and desirable.
AI: SC is to use the term mandatory and desirable.
CLO: Turning to Rule 5 - what we need to be focused on the issue of Liaisons. These are the people who are appointed by the ALAC. These are highly important positons as they incur a high degree of trust.
OCL: First statement - All Liaisons are appointed by the ALAC - with the exception of the SSAC liaison which is formally selected by the SSAC and then approved by the Board. The ALAC offers recommendations.. It is also important to note that the SSAC Liaison is a full member of the SSAC. Re the IDN Liaison, what was the background of this?
CLO: In terms of the capital "L" was to pick up on that point, OCL. The rules refer to particular details. There are historical articfacts. It is because we had an IDN liaison before there was a group. How we named them is sometimes not fully correct. Discussed the Presidents Group - which closed in 2004 or 2005. So there was a need to have a L/l liaison. However, that need no longer exists. We are talking about a hugely forward-facing posts. The SSAC liaison is a full member of the SSAC which will impact our rules. It is up to the SSAC to determine if the ALAC Liaison is performing up to their criteria. So, if we are not happy with the SSAC Liaison, but the SSAC is, we can, and we have, can send a new recommendation. However, it is possible that the person that we now feel is not meeting our needs, they can still continue as a member of the SSAC.
FSS: A minor clarification about what you just said, Cheryl, re the first appointee in such a situation as you just explained? Do we just appoint a second one ?
CLO: We withdrew the status of the ALAC Liaison to the SSAC. The ALAC put forward, under the same procedures as before, two people. The SSAC went through their vetting process and chose one. That person served several years. From the SSAC's point of view, they changed the former SSAC Liaison to just a member. They both served next to each other with no problems. The original person, I believe, is still functioning perfectly well within the SSAC. That is the business of SSAC. It took less than two meetings.
AG: We've beat this one to death almost. However, I'll add a few more blows to this. OCL, you said we can't withdraw it. We can. We just can't stop them sitting on the SSAC as a member.
RK: My concern is mostly the ...when I look at Rule 5.1. It says that there is no requirement for a LIaison to be a member of the ALAC .What is the requirement.
CLO: That is an important point. We expect a high level of invovlement of the ALAC. They have the work of the ALAC, the work of the WGs, etc. that is just ALAC. If you happen to be an ALAC member and a liaison, as Alan has, you need to have a lot of bandwidth. However, when Alan was no longer a NomCom member of the ALAC, it would have been a loss for Alan not to continue in his role as Liaison to the GNSO. You can be former member of the ALAC. You can be someone who has the right skills, but not have served on the ALAC. In the future, the GAC may have an ALAC Liaison. This would be a non-voting member, observer...if that were to come to pass, we would want someone with the highest amount experience with governments and international organizations. I would argue that should stay as a rule. However, we are setting metrics, not the rule.
RK: This rule cannot longer exist. It must be ...You need to state here what the requirement is for an ALAC LIaison.
YA: Cheryl, you explained very well the reason behind Rule 5.1. Not everyone can play this role.
SSP: Two things: 1) I agree with the last point raised that Alan should review Rule 5 as he has a lot of experience. However, I'd like to state for the record that if there are any amendments that if there is a LIaison to the GAC, there should be special procedures. Some people representing ALAC should precisely represent ALAC. So an ALAC LIaison should be an ALAC member.
CLO: From someone with experience of both, I most respecitively say what we mean by ALAC members. They are either NomCom appointees for two year terms or selected by the RALOs....They are an integral, but not appointed part of the..We can ask the ROP WG to discuss.
Maureen Hilyard: So if we are looking at measuring Liaisons participation.. as Carlton has pointed out.. what are we actually measuring and how?
FSS: What would we do if the SSAC Liaison is an ALAC member and he is not doing the job?
CLO: If any of the Liaisons are doing a good job, then no problem. If they are not, then we will have rules to deal with them. It doesn't matter if they are an ALAC member or not. I'd like to announce that although this call has not discussed the nitty - gritty, we will go to Alan and then wrap up. I will go to Alan and then take the rest to the lists.
AG: The rules apply for the Liaisons is an ALAC member or not, they are selected by the ALAC and therefore have the same expectations. The ALAC Liaison to the GNSO is a heavy commitment. The ALAC is a heavy commitment. I was able to handle both. However, it should not be a requirement that a LIaison be an ALAC member. In the case of the GAC LIaison, I can think of someone ,but we shouldn't have super expectations. In terms of the actual expectations for Liaisons...If you are going to say that this Liaison is only going to forward ALAC statements, you don't need a human, you need an email account. The whole point is that this person needs to be able to speak from the context of the ALAC. There will often be times that their interjection is ad hoc. Also, they need to be clear when they are speaking on behalf of the ALAC and when they are not. They also need to be able to participate in the GNSO Council and its WGs. They need to become a valued part of the community so they will be listened to. You have to put a process in place to appoint a person who can speak on ALAC's behalf.
CLO - We'll pick up where we left off next call but homework.
