[ALAC] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project -- important update

sandra hoferichter info at hoferichter.eu
Thu Oct 13 12:49:19 UTC 2011


Dear all,

with interest I follow the discussion held at this list and take this
opportunity to let you know some of my thoughts. As one of the
ALAC-Newcomers I absolutely support the idea of giving some sort of
"description on the job". This would have been very helpful at the beginning
of my term.  I am still  in the position of learning out about the work done
so far, the history of ALAC, the input expected, get to know the people***
etc.... I am lucky to have a very supportive RALO behind me where I can ask
my "silly" questions, my special thanks to Wolf in this regard. The RALO for
me is the organisation I feel obliged to at first, because they elected me.
Sanctions (how ever they look like) for under performing candidates should
IMO be an instrument for the RALOs to handle with. The feedback to the RALO
about the performance of a representative is guaranteed thorough the RALO
chair and the secretariat, present at the ICANN meetings. 

Then of course I feel also obliged to the ALAC to provide input wherever
possible, listen to ongoing discussions and deepen into the various issues.
This is not an easy job, for somebody who is new in the entire ICANN
community, therefore I like to underline (again) the need of an ICANN
Academy for future officers at this point. I strongly believe such an
capacity building programm is helpful in this matter.

I also believe that other ACs and SOs have similar problems. The GAC for
instance has also to deal with the people send by the country (if any) and
they don't even have the feedback function as we have with the RALO chair
and secretariat present. So we have quite strong and very  democratic
structures, we just have to adjust a little bit. If are successful, the
recognition of ALAC will be even better. BTW I don’t think the recognition
is that bad, as it might have been in the past. ICANN and in particular ALAC
are young organisations and multistakeholder approaches are still an
experiment and definitely not always easy to handle.

Looking forward to meet you in Dakar!

***maybe it is an idea to meet for an ALAC breakfast (or dinner the day
before) before we take our seats in the conference style. I still like to
get to know many of you better and we have also new members in our
community.

Sandra


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Im Auftrag von
tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Oktober 2011 10:03
An: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'ALAC EXCOM'; 'At-Large Worldwide'
Betreff: Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-ExCom] ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project --
important update

Thank you very much Alan. You were and you remain a very valuable resource.

I do share your POV. It's now our duty to deeply discuss this burning issue
without any passion. The most important thing we should have in mind is the
interest of ALAC, its credibility and its visibility. Sure, we need to avoid
shocking the ALAC members by using appropriate words, but we must find a way
to make all the ALAC members as performent as possible.

----------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations
Phone : + 216 70 825 231
Mobile : + 216 98 330 114
Fax     : + 216 70 825 231
----------------------------------------------------------



-----Message d'origine-----
De : alac-excom-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-excom-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan
Greenberg
Envoyé : mercredi 12 octobre 2011 18:09
À : ALAC EXCOM; At-Large Worldwide
Objet : Re: [ALAC-ExCom] [ALAC] ALAC/At-Large Improvements Project --
important update

As the person who arguably started this discussion by proposing monitoring
and subsequent possible actions several years ago (and still bear the scars
from presiding over what may be the hottest-under-the-collar ALAC meeting on
record), I would like to add a few thoughts.

I agree that the word "sanctions" is far too strong and onerous a word to be
used here, but as Olivier has pointed out, we still need to discuss what
type of action the ALAC or perhaps the ALAC Chair or
officers) *might* take in the case of significant under-performance. 
And I of course agree that we do need to be as specific as possible in
identifying ahead of time what is expected of ALAC members and RALO
officers.

There are three additional perspectives that I have not seen being raised.
In my years on and watching the ALAC, I have seen all three, so they are not
just theoretical.

- For a RALO appointed ALAC member, if the RALO is happy with their
representatives performance, perhaps the rest of At-Large should accept
that. But even if they are not, it is counter to the personality (and
cultures) of some to actually confront the person who they often have to
deal with in other contexts, and who they often consider a friend. Having
the ALAC (or a someone) do the dirty work for them might be a safe way out
of the situation.

- If an ALAC member severely under-performs, it is not just their region
that suffers. This adds to the load carried by the rest of the ALAC. If (as
sadly has been the case in some past years), a significant percentage of the
ALAC are in this category, the load on the rest becomes ridiculous.

- The overall reputation and credibility of ALAC and At-Large can be
impacted the poor performance of just a few.

I am not proposing how we deal with such situations, but it is important to
consider all implications when we discuss what if anything should be done
other than collect and make available performance data (as all seem to agree
should be done).

Alan

At 12/10/2011 11:56 AM, Wolf Ludwig wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I share Evan's basic question: "accountable to who?" and subsequent 
>considerations. And I would say: In a broader sense to the Internet 
>users in general, in a causal sense to the regional community that 
>selected them = the RALOs concerned by such an under-performing 
>candidate should be "in charge" of any potential "sanction"
>mechanisms because the two *RALO selected* ALAC members are - first and 
>foremost - accountable to their electorate. A defective performance of 
>a regional representative / ALAC member affects performance and 
>reputation of the particular region and cannot be in their interest = 
>be tolerated over a certain span of time (except for serious 
>circumstances such as sickness and the like).
>
>I understand Carlton's reservations against sanctions or punishments of 
>volunteers but as soon as limited seats (15 or 2 per region) and 
>financial (travel etc.) resources are associated with a volunteer's 
>engagement, the mandated person and his community have a special 
>responsibility and accountability towards ALAC and ICANN. Otherwise, we 
>cannot fulfill our role and commitments - what we stand for - 
>diligently representing the users at ICANN.
>
>The key deliberation must be: The standards and professionalism we 
>expect and demand from others, we must fulfill ourselves at first hand 
>(typical trap of credibility ;-).
>
>Best,
>Wolf
>
>
>Evan Leibovitch wrote Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:39:
> >On 11 October 2011 19:04, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Take imaginary example candidate A, ALAC member, does not attend 
> >> calls, does not attend meetings, or when he travels, uses their 
> >> time outside of the ALAC room. A does not get involved in ALAC & 
> >> other working groups. A is basically using their affiliation to 
> >> ALAC as something that looks good on their CV. Admittedly, this is 
> >> an extreme, but Carlton, at the moment, nothing can be done about 
> >> that person, and that imaginary person is occupying a seat on the 
> >> ALAC, one of the only 15 seats of people supposed to act in the 
> >> best interests of the 2.1Bn Internet users out there. That person 
> >> is failing those 2.1Bn people. That person is not accountable.
> >>
> >I guess the big question -- at least MY big question -- is, 
> >accountable to who?
> >
> >If that person was sent by a RALO, the RALO should be able to handle 
> >this issue through a recall or other similar measure.
> >
> >If the person was appointed by the NomCom, the procedure is different 
> >but a mechanism is still required. By definition a NomCom ALAC 
> >appointee is not accountable to ALAC or the region, however it 
> >reflects badly on the NomCom and ICANN itself if non-performing ALAC 
> >members are chosen and allowed to under-serve for an entire two-year
term.
> >
> >What bothers me the most is the prospect of ALAC passing judgment 
> >over its own members. If a RALO elects someone who reflects their 
> >viewpoint, and that viewpoint is that only a small number of issues 
> >matter, this is indeed the RALO's choice to make and ALAC has no 
> >right to engage in top-down second-guessing. Education and persuasion,
certainly, but not sanctions.
> >
> >I fully agree on requesting that every RALO has some kind of recall 
> >mechanism for their elected officials -- not just ALAC members but 
> >also RALO chairs, secretariats and liaisons as applicable. Indeed I 
> >have long advocated this within my own RALO. I am also greatly in 
> >favour of staff's providing attendance and other performance metrics 
> >that allow a RALO to act appropriately on factual inputs. But I am 
> >very much against any scheme that has ALAC members being accountable to
other ALAC members.
> >
> >It's bad enough that the ICANN Board has no legal, fiduciary duty to 
> >the public, but only to ICANN itself. Let's not justify, let alone 
> >propagate that mistake within our own bounds.
> >
> >But in any case, this debate is premature. We're at an intermediate
> >> stage, with more than 50 recommendations in this report, some of 
> >> which are completed, some of which need to be taken to the next 
> >> stage. The debate on sanctions/no sanctions will happen later.
> >
> >
> >I don't think there's any problem with that. As I've mentioned, it's 
> >simply that the wording in the report right now could easily be 
> >interpreted by a casual reader to infer that we have already had the 
> >discussion, agreed on a regime of sanctions, and are simply 
> >discussing appropriate implementation going forward. WE know the 
> >debate is incomplete, but that is not what the report indicates.
> >
> >- Evan
> >_______________________________________________
> >ALAC mailing list
> >ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >
> >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committe
> e+(ALAC)
> >
>
>EuroDIG Secretariat
>http://www.eurodig.org/
>mobile +41 79 204 83 87
>Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
>
>EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
>http://euralo.org
>
>Profile on LinkedIn
>http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
>_______________________________________________
>ALAC-ExCom mailing list
>ALAC-ExCom at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom

_______________________________________________
ALAC-ExCom mailing list
ALAC-ExCom at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-excom

-----
Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message.
Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr
Version: 10.0.1390 / Base de données virale: 1518/3785 - Date: 24/07/2011
La Base de données des virus a expiré.


_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA
C)




More information about the ALAC mailing list