[ALAC] NomCom selection of ALAC Members
otieno.barrack at gmail.com
Wed Dec 6 06:18:14 UTC 2017
I agree with Alan, indeed it is important for the appointees to
demonstrate that they are users and equally that they have the
interests of users at heart through past activities that demonstrates
their involvement in championing users agenda.
On 12/6/17, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> Thanks Bastiaan.
> Recent NomCom appointments have been much better
> than those in the past. Which is good.
> These documents have not been revised in several
> years, and last time there was very little input
> received. So it was time to look at it again.
> Among the things I think need strengthening now
> are more explicit reference to us looking after
> users, and the need to be a self-starter, since
> those are the people who have tended to be more
> productive when coming onto the ALAC.
> At 05/12/2017 02:09 AM, Bastiaan Goslings wrote:
>>Thank you, Alan - apologies for not following up earlier.
>>I just read the â€˜documentation used last
>>yearâ€™. Your message suggests to me that some
>>NomCom selected ALAC members have not done well
>>because our ex ante requirements might not have
>>been clear/specific enough for the NomCom to
>>make the right selection. Which would then be a
>>reason to review these requirements.
>>The requirements with regard to selection of
>>candidates in the 2017 doc you attached in
>>itself seem fine with me: I was not part of the
>>procedures so I cannot judge whether the framing
>>of the requirements led to selection of
>>underperforming ALAC members, whether NomCom
>>selected the wrong candidates because of not
>>using good requirements properly, of whether
>>candidates fitted the requirements (i.e. doc is
>>fine and NonCom made a good selection) but that
>>some of them just did not live up to expectations.
>>(If the latter is the case then we should try to
>>learn from that IMO. Which would mean looking at
>>individuals and how/why they (under) performed
>>during their term. Then we would be looking more
>>at the â€˜responsibilitiesâ€™ of an ALAC member
>>as opposed to the requirements for the NomCom to select one)
>>Anyway. Happy to be part a a drafting team if that helps,
>> > On 5 Dec 2017, at 05:14, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>> > wrote:
>> > I have received nothing so far in reply to
>> this message. I will be reaching out to a few
>> people to help me adjust these documents, but
>> all input is welcome to try to ensure that
>> applicants know what they are getting themselves into.
>> > The deadline is the start of next week.
>> > Alan
>> >> Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 10:15:48 -0400
>> >> To: ALAC <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>> >> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>> >> Subject: NomCom selection of ALAC Members
>> >> The NomCom selects five ALAC members and
>> over the years, some have done well and others not.
>> >> The documentation used in the last year is
>> attached. I am asking whether there is still
>> time to revise it for the coming year. I
>> suspect that if the answer is yes, time will be tight.
>> >> I am interested in putting together a very
>> small drafting team to consider such revisions.
>> >> Alan
>> > 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:
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
Barrack O. Otieno
PGP ID: 0x2611D86A
More information about the ALAC