ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[At-Large Advisory Committee]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [alac] Minimum requirements for participation

  • To: Izumi AIZU <aizu@xxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [alac] Minimum requirements for participation
  • From: Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 13:01:36 +0200

Izumi AIZU wrote:
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?

Agree on both - they are non-measurable, but still I think we should list them as a principle commitment to be undertaken.

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.

Yes, but I think we should allow for the case where someone is offline for two or three weeks, for any possible reason (vacation, illness, whatever - even missing the vote call or losing email).

One could think of allowing "justifications", i.e. the Committee could excuse someone for not meeting the requirement, if he/she can provide a good reason. This, however, brings more "bureaucracy" into the process, so I would rather allow for a small percentage of absences (by the way, full participation is an important criteria for being an ALAC member, but not the only one).

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.

Other opinions? Even six months would be fine by me, if we think it is better to be more reactive.
vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi...

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy