[lac-discuss-en] At-Large Performance Management Proposal

Thu Oct 29 02:21:44 CDT 2009

Carlton: Strong  and clear argument for your position. I believe there aren`t nothing more to say.

this Is enough to me. Thanks to share your perspective about this matter.

Carlos Dionisio Aguirreabogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar
http://ar.ageiadensi.org 

> Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:05:24 -0500
> From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm
> To: alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> CC: alac-internal at atlarge-lists.icann.org; lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] At-Large Performance Management Proposal
> 
> I started out in our ALAC & Regional Leadership Working Session at Seoul
> giving reasons why I have grave reservations about this performance
> management process.
> 
> First, it seems like work. And quite frankly if we're going to make this
> "like work", then it disturbs the fundamental framework of our engagement; a
> voluntary group giving what they give because of interest.
> 
> I know. Some folks think it is the "free" travel that that is honey. I
> personally find that offensive since a) I work for fee and when I
> participate it is an opportunity cost, my account b) I've traveled for work
> almost 2 million air miles to all continents since I have been working and
> if I never travel for a mile for ICANN-related matters, I would be on an
> airplane way too often for my loved ones. Then again, I prefer my own bed.
> If you all interested, I will share my travel itinerary for the past 2
> months and the next 2 months!
> 
> Second, even as it allows that we come to the ICANN agenda with different
> experiences and different assumptions, the logic of this undermines all of
> those facts and the reasonable expectations that any thoughtful examination
> of the implications from assessment would have provided; we will not all be
> A1 and top of the class, even after we sit the bench for a time.
> 
> Third, this proposal posits the ALAC, en banc, as the jury, court of
> originating jurisdiction and the court of appeal. That is offensive to
> equity, probably immoral and fundamentally unfair.
> 
> Fourth, this assumes that we all have the same interests, even those who are
> elected to propel regional interests; this rubbishes the original
> anticipation for regional representation. I will give an example. There is
> no compelling regional or Caribbean interest in IDNs. So, quite frankly, it
> does not do those who represent the region any good with their constituents
> to be known as the "go-to" guy for IDN matters on ALAC! Take myself, for
> example. If you troll the lists, you will see very little from me on IDNs.
> So when that issue was hot and heavy, I could be deemed as non-performing.
> The way I deal with this issue is to let myself be guided by those with the
> compelling interest, those that I trust and those that I think have spent
> the time to educate themselves on the issues and so prepared to speak
> authoritatively. My light was Hong and now, James. So if ever I am called
> in a division, I will likely take counsel from them and vote with them.
> 
> Fifth, RALOs were designed to be independent entities raised to give advice
> to ICANN thru ALAC, en banc; RALO-appointed members were not intended to
> "take the whip" of ALAC. So the proposal sounds dangerously like the ALAC
> seeking to impose its will on the RALO. Let me explain. What if ALAC - at
> least the majority part of it - decides that some RALO-approved member is a
> dud and send this message back to the RALO of the offending member. And what
> if the RALO, having gravely considered the matter, decide there is nothing
> there and responds, "go fly a kite"? What then? Will the ALAC deny a seat
> at the table to the member in question? Closer to home, what does ALAC do
> when an advisory to the Board is not accepted, much less acknowledged?
> 
> Sixth, the proposal makes a very good case why statistics taken in their
> purest form is good but hardly sufficient to assess performance. So far, so
> good. Then it conflates the question of high performance versus low
> performance and bring back statistics as a definitive indicator of poor
> performance. The internal inconsistency is writ large, usually meaning a
> wholesale rejection.
> 
> I support and applaud the development of JDs. I cannot support *this*
> performance measurement proposal. It is good enough for members who is
> underwhelmed by another's performance to send a message. This then becomes
> a perfect opportunity for intervention by an *aware* Rapporteur. And by the
> way, mediating non-performing membership was one of the original
> ideas proffered for the Ex-Com and the PRINCIPAL reason why I supported it
> then; this was the price I thought manageable to act in any way to limit the
> deliberative rights of another ALAC member.
> 
> Finally, an analogy. I have a mango tree in my yard. Son of a gun, some
> years it gives us a good crop of very sweet mangoes, other years not so
> good. In the years that it is not at peak performance, I am inclined to cut
> it back, even to chop it down altogether. But my mother, bless her heart,
> would have none of it. Because, she says, it provides shade! I'm about good
> fruit..and she sees shade as equally valuable.
> 
> Let the matter rest at JDs and declare victory.
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> Carlton
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:25 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:
> 
> > The ALAC has now adopted the Position Description (PD) for ALAC members and
> > Liaisons (http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-PD). Despite satisfaction that it has
> > been approved, I must admit some disappointment at the low voter turnout.
> >
> > I now submit the following discussion paper on how to ensure that the PD is
> > effective.
> >
> > The document is based on the principles I presented in Sydney and modified
> > based on the comments received prior to and at that meeting. It has also
> > drawn very significantly from the policy proposed by Carlos Aguirre.
> >
> > This document will be presented and discussed on Tuesday in Seoul, with the
> > intent of deciding on the principles and to be followed soon thereafter with
> > a formal policy for discussion and approval.
> >
> > Any comments via e-mail or in person received sufficiently prior to the
> > meeting will be incorporated in the presentation.
> >
> > A machine-translated version in French and Spanish will be sent soon.
> >
> > 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_________________________________________________________________
Nuevo Windows 7: encontrá el equipo adecuado para vos. Obtené más información.
http://windows.microsoft.com/shop