[At-Large] Proposal: Rotating Chair for ALAC

[Michael Maranda]

This is being proposed (and makes sense) on the grounds that the role of the
Chair is a lot of work.  (So I assume that point is agreed).

"Willingness to serve" that role would likely be different once the
parameters are configured differently -  length of time is shorter... and
the expectations of service are clear up front -  a greater portion of the
committee being expected to serve in that role (with more back-up on the
several tasks).

If there is interest from several quarters that "chair's responsibilities be
somewhat divided", getting clear on that  up front makes more sense.  It
appears a non sequitor to say that "once things are working well" such a
change would come under consideration.   If things get to the point of
working well, count your blessings.

Length of service - "too short/too long" sounds like the wrong frame in
which to approach this.  If understood as shared responsibility of the
committee, rotation of the role has a number of benefits.  Structure, to the
extent we need it, should reflect our values, and should not be imitative of
those we find elsewhere.





On 7/8/07, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> Although I like the idea conceptually, I am dubious how successful it
> would be. My intuition tells me that the Chair job is a lot of work.
> Just because a meeting will be in a specific region does not mean
> that one of the three regional people (or less if terms are up) will
> be willing to devote the time to do it, or capable of taking on the
> tasks (that is not meant as a negative comment - I *know* what my
> strengths are and where my interests lie, and I presume others do as
> well). Perhaps once things are working well and on a regular basis
> within the ALAC, it would be time for such a change. In my mind,
> today is not that day.
>
> However, similar to the issue that Izumi raised, I proposed several
> months ago that the chair's responsibilities be somewhat divided.
> Specifically I suggested that there be several vice chairs and that
> for any given task (agenda's, intra-ICANN coordination, etc) that
> either the Chair be the lead person and one of the vice-chairs backs
> them up, or vice versa. This would spread the work around a bit more,
> play to people's strengths, and ensure backup for all responsibilities.
>
> I also agree with Izumi about term. 3-4 months is too short to really
> get the feel of the job (and too long if the wrong person is selected!).
>
> Alan
>
> At 08/07/2007 09:30 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> >I am rather conservative on this idea of rotating chair.
> >
> >I think we should first define/agree on the division of labor of the
> >whole committee's works, who is going to work on which areas.
> >
> >After that, we can agree on how much the Chair should
> >do, either with the current model, or with the proposed
> >rotating Chair model.
> >
> >In case we adopt to the rotation, perhaps the term may be
> >longer than one meeting. I think 3 to 5 months are too short to
> >become effective.
> >
> >izumi
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter
Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance
Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition
President, Association For Community Networking

Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance:
http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070709/4bd468c3/attachment.html