Re: [alac] Proposed additional questions for ALAC applicants

["Roberto Gaetano" <alac_liaison@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think we should be clear on what are "compulsory commitments" and what is 
"nice to have".
I agree with Vittorio on the fact that participation to meetings (physical 
and teleconferences) should be taken for granted. The whole point in 
renewing part of the ALAC comes from the fact that a couple of people have 
found out that their situation had changed and that they could not cope with 
the commitments: if we loosen these commitments for fear of not finding 
candidates, we might as well stay with the current composition.

A different thing is participation to task forces, revision of position 
papers, outreach activities, etc. It should be clear that we do not expect 
everybody to do everything. In this sense, activities are "optional" or 
"nice to have". But it should also be clear that we expect members to do at 
least one of these activities, depending on time and personal inclination.

In other words, the ALAC exists to get some work done. Members are recruited 
to help in getting the work done. If individuals cannot contribute to this, 
no point in joining: we go to ICANN and say that it is difficult to 
"recruit" volounteers, and that we need to consider the idea of having more 
staff. Still better to face reality beforehand than to have to explain 
afterwards why we did not produce up to the expectations.

Regards,
Roberto GAETANO
ALAC
ICANN BoD Liaison




> From: AIZU <aizu@xxxxxxx>
> To: Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,        ICANN At-Large - Denise 
> Michel <michel@xxxxxxxxx>
> CC: ALAC <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [alac] Proposed additional questions for ALAC applicants
> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:42:14 +0900
>
>
> At 10:14 04/12/12 +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:17:25 -0800, ICANN At-Large - Denise Michel
> > <michel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >No.  Allow me to clarify.  The general sense of my observation is that,
> > >with some of these questions, you seem to be asking for a higher level
> > >of commitment from new ALAC members than from existing members.
> >
> > Well, personally I take it for granted that, if I am a member of a certain
> > group, I am expected to attend all physical and virtual meetings of the
> > group unless I have specific reasons not to do so. Is there anyone in the
> > Committee who thinks that showing up on conf calls and reading the mailing
> > list should only be an optional commitment for ALAC members?
> >
> > I'd still make it clear for new members that we expect some commitments 
> > from
> > them. We might perhaps weaken the wording and talk about "expected
> > commitments" or something like that, but I don't think that we should tell
> > to applicants that they are not expected to participate to our meetings.
>
> I support what Vittorio says here. Asking for good amount of commitments
> from new applicants do not mean asking the same thing NOW to the
> existing members.
>
>
> > >I
> > >understand you have an idea of what it takes to be an "optimal" ALAC
> > >member, but it seems to me that current ALAC members should agree to a
> > >level of commitment before new members are asked to do so (I think it's
> > >the fair and equitable thing to do).
> >
> > This might be another thread :) In fact, we have been encouraging people 
> > to
> > reconsider their status and availability, and this is why are introducing
> > four new members between Cape Town and Mar del Plata.
>
> I also agree that commitments to new members and applying that to existing 
> ones
> are different things. Let's separate these two things.
>
>
> > In the meantime, as you also say, I think that the questions you pose are 
> > to
> > be considered in our "position paper" (BTW - how is the work proceeding?
> > could we please have the "terms of reference" proposal posted in the next
> > days?), but we can't stop the process - so, unless I hear other 
> > objections,
> > I'd go on with the list of questions including some small edits. If so, I
> > can send a final version to you in a couple of days.
>
> I have not done much about position paper and its terms of reference,
> sorry about that and thanks for the reminder. will try to do so shortly.
>
> And I think we should proceed now.
>
> izumi
>
>
> > --
> > vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
> > http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/