[EURO-Discuss] action items from last call and ALAC performance indicators
ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Tue Apr 21 10:58:42 EDT 2009
Looking through the action items from last month's call I see I have
"New gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook, Version 2 (V2)
A Peake will rework a draft statement based on that information on
behalf of Euralo and submit it to the discussion list 30 April is the
deadline for the Euralo comments, and then the statement will be sent
to the Icann board."
Did I say I'd do this? I've not been following the Applicant
Guidebook closely so I'm surprised I volunteered to anything on this.
Note, the ALAC has just voted to support a statement on the guidebook
developed from the Summit WG statement
All voted in favor.
ALAC also recently made a statement on the GNSO non-commercial
RALO may wish to consider.
Second action item:
"ALAC Review WG Draft Final Report
A Peake will draft a statement on behalf of Euralo and poste it on
the Euralo discussion- list."
I have a note of this one but thought I said I would try to make time
to summarize any changes from the earlier reports we'd discussed,
highlight issues I thought we should take note of for possible
comment. I am pretty certain I didn't say I would draft a statement.
Anyway, my apologies, I haven't done whatever it was. Started, and
got distracted by work, life and other things.
Perhaps ironic given the two incomplete actions by my name... I have
volunteered to join a working group to draft a set of performance
indicators for ALAC members and liaisons. See email below.
I'd like to know what RALO members think about ways to judge ALAC
Stepping back a bit, I think we need to begin with a job description,
an agreed set of tasks and goals to judge performance against. At
the moment performance is judged on participation
<http://www.atlarge.icann.org/alac/performance.htm> using 3 measures:
ALAC conference calls, ICANN conferences and ALS accreditation votes.
Liaisons are also asked to submit liaison reports which are recorded.
Current indicators are quantitative - they tell you if person turns
up, they don't give any indication of any work done (I could have a
100% record of attending meetings, calls and votes, but never comment
on a list, sleep during the calls except for when I need to wake to
How can we introduce more qualitative measures, while remembering
ALAC members and liaisons are volunteers?
Speck to you soon.
>Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp
>Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:49:47 -0400
>To: ALAC Working List <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>Subject: [ALAC] Performance Indicators
>X-BeenThere: alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>List-Id: At-Large Advisory Committee
> <mailto:alac-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Post: <mailto:alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>List-Help: <mailto:alac-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org?subject=help>
> <mailto:alac-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org?subject=subscribe>
>Sender: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>In Mexico City, I was asked to lead a group developing a draft set
>of performance indicators for ALAC members and Liaisons.
>I would suggest that this include RALO leadership, but purely from
>the point of view of their interaction with the ALAC. Specifically,
>there are some tasks related to taking information from the ALAC and
>sending them on to ALSs, and getting information back, that might be
>handled by wither the RALO-appointed ALAC members from the region,
>or by the RALO leadership. I don't think that the ALAC cares which
>it is in each case, as long as SOMEONE is doing it.
>A similar committee was created in Cairo, but it never met, and so
>we are starting again. The members of the original group were
>We one WG member from each region. Cheryl and Adam have already
>volunteered. So we now need a volunteer from LACRALO and from AFRALO.
>ALAC mailing list
>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
More information about the EURO-Discuss