[ALAC] Draft text for ALAC Response to BGC WG Report on ALAC Review Points 4 to 6

[Izumi AIZU]

Are there any response, reaction to the following points?
I am curious to hear.

izumi

2008/11/4 Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>:
> Dear AtLarge, here is my first few para for the Second part of our response
> to the Board
> Governance Working Group Report on AtLarge Review.
>
>
> On Effectiveness and participation
>
> 4. Educating and engaging the ALSs should be an immediate priority;
> compliance should be a longer term goal.
>
> We agree that there is a good room to improve the participation of ALSs in
> our RALO and AtLarge activities. For that reason, we have been working very
> hard to organize the Summit – a global meeting of all ALSs to come to one
> place together.
>
> We also note that it is very important for us to continue our outreach work
> to recruit more new ALSs, and also explore ways to setup a mechanism where
> individuals who have keen interest in ICANN policy areas while she or he may
> not have strong interest in joining any of the existing ALSs with good
> reasons.
>
> To achieve these, we hope that ICANN continue to provide sufficient
> resources.
>
> 5. ALAC should develop strategic and operational plans (including
> performance criteria and cost information) as part of ICANN's planning
> process
>
> We agree that it is worth to consider developing Strategic and Operational
> Plans as suggested in WG Report. We like to work out the specific details in
> coming months. We also note and support that in the Independent Review
> Report, there were two recommendations
>
> 6. More effort needs to be put into developing accurate cost models for At
> Large activity
>
> Together with the Recommendation 4 of the Independent Review Report "ICANN
> should implement on activity-based costing system", we support the idea of
> having cost model based on AtLarge activities. In fact, we advocate more
> transparency than current budget information on AtLarge activities. We also
> like to see clear distinction be made between specific AtLarge related costs
> and general ICANN out reach activity costs which benefits all ICANN
> constituencies, not specific to AtLarge.
>
> We also agree with the comments of WG Report on the Recommendation 5 of the
> Independent Review Report - while we need sufficient resource support to
> ALAC activities, we like specific ways on how to allocate the budget be left
> to the consultation and negotiation between ALAC Chair and ICANN staff.
>
> [Comments on Points 7 to 9 will come later]
>
>
>



-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org