Re: [alac] Minimum requirements for participation

["Roberto Gaetano" <alac_liaison@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I basically agree with Izumi.

I suggest "actively participating in the ALAC mailing lists"
By the same token: "actively participating in the ALS certification process, 
including voting"

And yes, 6 months is already a sufficiently long time span to evaluate. We 
should not forget that we live in Internet times.

I don't think it is appropriate to set measurable quantities: the reasons 
for failing to comply might be more important than participation itself. 
However, if we want do indicate thresholds, they have to be reasonable: I 
don't think that participation in only 1/3 of the activities 
(teleconferences and/or physical meetings) is reasonable. No organization 
can survive with members that have such low level of participation, and to 
put this black on white will attract severe criticism by the community and 
will be very puzzling for the candidate ALSes.

To be very honest, I would much prefer to have vacant seats rather than 
zombies. Incidentally, vacant seats will automatically solve the quorum 
problem for votes. Also, we can go to the Board (and to the internet 
community) and say: "we have difficulties in recruiting, because the work is 
hard for volounteers that have a daytime job", but to say: "we have members 
who have accepted the task, but who don't work" is not something I can live 
with.

In summary, do we think we do have a task to accomplish? If no, just tell 
me, I will resign immediately. If yes, do we think that in order to 
accomplish that task we need 15 people fully contributing? If yes, please 
set the rules in a way that we can replace the people who, for the thousand 
reasons that can and will happen in a person's life, are unable to continue 
to provide the level of commitment that is required. Otherwise, if we have 
only a percentage of the ALAC who has to deal with 100% of the work, the 
only thing that we will accomplish is to worn out faster the ones who work.

Incidentally, another point of agreement with Izumi is that if we have rules 
they should be known to people who apply, and to the nominating committee.

Regards,
Roberto GAETANO
ALAC
ICANN BoD Liaison




> From: Izumi AIZU <aizu@xxxxxxx>
> To: Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ALAC <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [alac] Minimum requirements for participation
> Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 10:20:45 +0900
>
> Thanks Vittorio for putting this in front of us.
>
> Here's my short comments.
>
> At 14:30 05/08/04 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > in Luxembourg, I was tasked to make a proposal to the Committee about
> > how to set minimum requirements for participation by ALAC members.
> >
> > The purpose would be to allow for the replacement of members if they
> > fail to meet a minimum level of activity, so to be able to replace them
> > with new individuals, hopefully more able to devote time to the
> > Committee.
> >
> > I think that (apart from participation in liaisoning / task forces /
> > communications, which is left to each person's good will) the basic
> > "duties" of a Committee member should be:
>
>
> > 1. reading the ALAC-related mailing lists
>
> Though I agree this is "minimam" requirement, but just "reading" sounds
> short of "participation". It is too soft I think.
>
> "Reading and posting comments when necesarry" - something like that.
>
> > 2. participating in ALS votes
>
> Taking part of due digiligence for regoinal ALS applicants?
>
> > 3. participating in conference calls
> > 4. participating in physical meetings
>
> > While 1. is hardly measurable, the other three criteria could be
> > quantified.
> >
> > My idea would be that the minimum requirements could be:
> > - explicitly casting a vote (including abstention, of course) in at
> > least 2/3 of the ALS votes
>
> In theory, this should be ALL, not 2/3, I think, if we allow abstention.
>
> > - participating in at least 1/3 of the conf calls
> > - participating in at least one physical meeting per year
> >
> > I think that 9 or 12 months is a reasonable span of time to measure
> > participation - less than that would be a problem in case of special
> > periods in private life / daytime jobs, more would not be effective.
>
> To me, 6 to 9 months be enough. IF there is special circumstances,
> when s/he knows it difficult to participate in advance, either s/he
> should acknolwdget, or step down. Given the current situation, I think
> we do not have much luxury in wasting our time and energy.
>
>
>
> > Does this sound acceptable?
> >
> > If yes, there is another question: should these requirements be written
> > down in detail in the Bylaws, or should we just ask for a generic
> > sentence meaning "the Committee may set minimum requirements for
> > participation, members failing to abide with them shall decay and be
> > replaced"?
>
> I thinks this should be outisde the Bylaws, but make explicit
> as our "Internal Code" just like other procedures. AND, it will be
> much better to give it to NomCom and include in the announcement
> for the Call, AND, give it to the newly appointed members when
> they start to participate. If this is an "obligation", better inform
> it clearly.
>
> I might be too strong, but to stimulate reactions, we need to
> think twice.
>
> thanks,
>
> izumi

_________________________________________________________________
Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/