[lac-discuss-en] [ALAC] Draft revised Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements

[Jacqueline A. Morris]

I agree 100%
Jacqueline
Carlton Samuels wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lac-discuss-en mailing list
> lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>