[lac-discuss-en] [ALAC] Draft revised Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements
Carlton Samuels
carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm
Wed Oct 22 12:11:29 EDT 2008
This is a very measured response because quite frankly, this entire chapter
tends to make this *voluntary* situation seems like work for fee. Secondly,
it is offends reason and vex the spirit to think that minutes spent in a
meeting is being equated with participation! [Do indulge and give me relief
on this notion!]
All in all, I support the general thrust of Alan's views. And if this
proposal came to a vote as is, I would *strongly recommend and encourage*
LACRALO representatives to ALAC to vote NO.
Carlton
-----Original Message-----
From: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 02:09 PM
To: ALAC Working List
Subject: [ALAC] Draft revised Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements
(Comment also posted to the wiki.)
There is a draft revision of the ALAC Rules of Procedure Rule 21 -
Minimum Participation Requirements posted at
https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?cairo_documents. The draft sets
out the expectations of ALAC members and others, and includes
remedies for non-performance. I have quite strong feelings about this
proposal.
First, those of you who have heard me talk or read my comments about
ALAC members who cannot or do not participating effectively know that
I fell that this problem must be addressed. However, I feel the
documents is totally inappropriate in a number of ways.
If it comes to a vote in anywhere near the current version, I will
vote against it.
I could write a lot on this, but I will try to keep this short, and
hopefully start a dialogue. Here is gist of my concerns:
- The fact that this is a 10 page document, up from the previous 1
page is a first symptom. We should not need to go into things at that
level. The people participating in our group should be sufficiently
professional and intelligent that we do not have to do this.
- As with the previous version, it sets specific, quantitative
targets for some aspects of performance and demands 100% compliance
or be subject to removal. This version is slightly better in that it
gives some option for correction. But it is still relies too much on
an automata view of process (that is, prescribed such that it could
be implemented by a computer without human intervention).
- I object to decision making delegated in such a broad way to the
Chair and the Executive Committee (a concept that does not even exist
in the rest of the RoP).
I have no problem describing expectations and in fact I strongly
advocate it. But writing rules such as these almost sets the
expectations that we are going to have a lot of people in violation
of them. We should set reasonable expectations, and in the (hopefully
rare) cases that people are not meeting them, take effective action.
If we feel that we need such detailed and rigid rules to get
effective participation, we are not selecting the right people, and
THAT is something that we should be addressing with the highest priority.
Alan
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1737 - Release Date: 21/10/2008
02:10 PM
More information about the lac-discuss-en
mailing list