[lac-discuss-en] = utf-8 b TcOpdHJpY2Fz =????

[apisanty at gmail.com]

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]

 Subject: = utf-8 b TcOpdHJpY2Fz =???? 
 From: apisanty at gmail.com

 Colleagues, 


 today at the monthly meeting face (f2) we held a brief discussion 
 on metrics. 


 Subject to this discussion back to his place in a working group, 
 I think it is worth to make clear what the objective metrics. This 
 It is well understood in the community, and those who say they do not 
 They made by self-interest to distort the discussion. 


 What we need we are accountability and transparency between us 
 thereof. Individuals and organizations working activametne be 
 identified. Organizations and individuals that do not contribute 
 They involved to decide whether they will participate or no longer counted. And there 
 an intermediate strip of organizations and representatives who are 
 difficult to participate but have the will to do so.Among these there 
 Many types of situations: a representative who is sick or has to 
 spend time with family or work that sustains; changing 
 directive or mandate; and many more circumstances. 


 A good metric system would be simple, transparent, predictable, and 
 difficult to counterfeit. Would make a "triage", ie would rather obvious 
 5-10 which are regularly participating organizations and 
 They contribute 20 which are practically abandoned, and a strip 
 intermediate 10 or 15 with which we must work in hopes that 
 recover their participation or leave the organization voluntarily or 
 by way of decertification. This assumes renewal cycles 
 certifications, we must institute. 


 There is a classification of units that can help us further 
 in this process: 


 1. Regular and consistent participation in all activities, and 
 contribution to substantive policy issues.His proposals are 
 LACRALO incorporated into resolutions and have impact on policy 
 ALAC and ICANN. 


 2. sporadic participation and / or devoted to procedural matters 
 Reglaments, formats agreements but not their contents, etc. 


 3. sporadic appearances, little focus, and fundamentally 
 leading to "make presence" for elections and selection processes 
 for participation in events, especially if they involve support for 
 travel. 


 Our observation or measurement of participation of organizations 
 should favor the type 1, type 3 disadvantage, and encourage those who 
 make appearances type 2 pass to level 1. 


 If we can have agreement around these principles, the Working Group 
 Governance Metrics and only have to produce a good 
 implementation and their work will be more reliable, predictable and achievable. 


 Is there any disagreement with these general principles? 


 Alejandro Pisanty


 - 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty 
 UNAM Faculty of Chemistry 
 3000 University Avenue,. 04510 Mexico DF Mexico 
 + 52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD 
 SMS FROM MEXICO +525541444475 +525541444475 
 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com 
 LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty 
 UNAM Join the LinkedIn group, 
 http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 
 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty 
 ---- >> Join ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org 
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 



[[--Original text (es)
http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/22a894d8ba.html
--]]