Re: [lac-discuss-en] [ALAC] Some thoughts on ALS Criteria & Expectations Taskforce
Note should have been "last" not "latter".
I think this is out of scope for the ALS criteria TF, but is 100% in
scope for the Outreach and Engagement SC. How we populate the list of
people who we fund for travel to ICANN meetings is completely up to
us (as long as it is reasonably well justified and implemented fairly.
Skill, commitment or whatever is fair game.
At 08/08/2015 03:37 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
agreed on all your other points.
On 08/08/2015 00:58, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> 3. The latter ones come to meetings, perhaps attend some meetings,
> enjoy the local offerings, and go home and forget about us until the
> next trip. THOSE are the ones that I have a real problem with.
And unfortunately whenever the time comes for having face to face
meetings, we treat those people the same way as we treat the people who
genuinely want to get involved. It is impossible to build a relationship
with people who do not make the effort to keep involved in between face
to face meetingsMy argument is that we should identify people who have a
genuine interest in helping out and facilitate their involvement in face
to face meetings, more often than at GAs every 5 years.
So far, what I have done is to give excellent references to people
applying for the fellowship program and whom I judge to be of real
potential. But that's not enough since the program is only available for
This is why I would favour the ability for the ALAC to invite people
from their ALSes to an ICANN meeting, based on a skill requirement. For
example, the hot topic is about WHOIS, let's invite people whom we know
to be privacy experts. The hot topic is about ICANN Accountability -
let's invite people who run an ALS that has a need to impeccable