[APAC-Discuss] METRICS

[Karaitiana Taiuru]

These are my thoughts based on not been an ALAC member (nor do I have time
to).

I would support a more closer monitoring approach to the ALAC performance
review and would like to see the evaluations distributed to the relevant
RALO's as we are the ones who nominate and put our trust in our
representatives to provide our views and then to report back to us.

I would expect that participation in all meetings, emails and Work Groups
would be at the very minimum 90%. There are so many issues at present it
would be hard not to have a voice at a meeting.

Saying this, I would also expect that any new ALAC appointments are mentored
and giving an appropriate transition period and were made to feel
comfortable to ask for help.  Some cultural and language barriers may also
exist and should be considered.

If people are under-performing, then perhaps a mechanism of someone talking
to them in a non threating manner to see if there is any assistance required
etc.

Perhaps too, some way of recognition for the long hours and dedication may
also be a motivation. This is likely to be more of a RALO initiative though.

-----Original Message-----
From: apac-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:apac-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Maureen
Hilyard
Sent: Sunday, 24 November 2013 5:52 p.m.
To: APRALO
Subject: [APAC-Discuss] METRICS

APRALO colleagues

As Siranush had informed you already, I am on a working group (headed by
Cheryl Langdon-Orr)  that is looking at measuring the performance of ALAC
members (as expected in the ALAC Rules of Procedure). We are later to be
looking at ALSes and RALOs.

It is an extremely difficult thing to do when:
* the people in these positions are volunteers who have offered to do this
work out of the goodness of their hearts - how do you measure their
contribution to a task that has been set?
* the Board and Management are becoming more vocal about getting value for
money spent within the system - it costs a lot of money to bring the
committees of the ICANN system together for each meeting. three times a
year. They rightfully  want to know that they are getting their money's
worth.
* it is very difficult to ascertain what METRICS are appropriate to measure
each particular type of performance (attendance? contribution? value of
contribution? others?)

As ALSes you elect your APRALO representatives on the ALAC (me and Holly)
and although Raf has been appointed to the ALAC as and APRALO NOMCOM
candidate - the expectations should be the same.

Therefore I'd really like to hear not only about WHAT performance criteria
should be evaluated but also HOW it might be appropriately measured. I would
like to use the advice of the ALSes to put together an evaluative process
which could help us evaluate all the groups we have been tasked to evaluate.

This is what we are looking at, at the moment:

1. Do ALAC members attend all the meetings they should?  Some attend the
face to face meetings, but not the online meetings. ICANN is not looking at
these candidates very favourably.

2. Do ALAC members who attend the meetings actually contribute anything to
the meetings? Some attend meetings but they don't say anything - what value
do they give? Some log into teleconference meetings, but because they don't
contribute anything, it is difficult to know whether they actually
listening?)

3. Do ALAC members participate on working groups? We have lots of members
who volunteer for a working group, and never turn up for meetings to do the
work. Its the same people every time doing the work .

There may be other questions you may want to ask. Please do...

Very importantly, HOW can we more effectively evaluate performance - what do
you use in your workplace?

Let me know.. I'd love to hear from you.

Maureen
_______________________________________________
APAC-Discuss mailing list
APAC-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss

Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org