[Metrics.SC] Metrics framework

[Adam Peake]

Four components of At Large and the ALS are the basic building block,
the connector to users.  Clearly the criteria for ALS (or at least
90%) are not being and never have been met.  About time they were.
Especially as At Large gets closer to the new gTLD objection process.

Adam


On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:36 AM, Alan Greenberg
<alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> Darlene, Perhaps as you say "mainly" but not
> necessarily exclusively. The ALAC could well set
> some metrics for ALSs. In fact, there are already
> some (with compliance not monitored) such as
> having a web site referring to At-Large.
>
> Alan
>
> At 07/05/2012 10:56 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
>>Actuallyl, the metrics WG mainly deals with ALAC
>>metrics, not ALS mettrics.  These are metrics
>>that our elected ALAC reps must follow.
>>
>>D
>>
>>Darlene A. Thompson
>>CAP Administrator
>>N-CAP/Department of Education
>>P.O. Box 1000, Station 910
>>Iqaluit, NU  X0A 0H0
>>Phone:  (867) 975-5631
>>Fax:  (867) 975-5610
>>dthompson at gov.nu.ca
>>________________________________________
>>From: metrics.sc-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>[metrics.sc-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] on
>>behalf of Maureen Hilyard [hilyard at oyster.net.ck]
>>Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 1:14 PM
>>To: metrics.sc at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>Subject: [Metrics.SC] Metrics framework
>>
>>Just some quick comments.
>>
>>Firstly, I agree with Darlene’s comment on the
>>wiki, that from the outset the expectations must
>>be clearly defined for ALSes so that they
>>understand what it is that they are committing
>>themselves to when they become an ALS.  And
>>Tijani’s proposal identifies some important
>>issues addressing ALS commitment to involvement in the ICANN process.
>>
>>Meeting attendance?  it would be nice to make an
>>expectation that an ALS member personally
>>attends at least one meeting a year, as a
>>minimum expectation, but I know how difficult
>>even that expectation is when I am reliant on a
>>fellowship and competing with hundreds of other prospects.
>>
>>RALO attendance? Participation in a RALO meeting
>>however, should be a given, and a standard of
>>expectation should be set as quite high. The
>>multistakeholder model provides for bottom up,
>>but if the ALS membership does not participate
>>then we are not effectively implementing the
>>model in the interests of ICANN. Perhaps a 75%
>>attendance of RALO meetings could be a minimum
>>expectation. Each ALS has a minimum membership,
>>surely at least one member can participate in
>>the meeting each month and hopefully contribute (technology willing).
>>
>>Active participation? It would be difficult to
>>assess whether active participation in a meeting
>>actually represents active interest and
>>participation beyond the meeting, especially if
>>the ALS organisation itself has reporting
>>expectations of their member. I know that in our
>>ALSes, a report on each month’s meeting is
>>expected, by whoever attends. And if the normal
>>rep can’t attend, then a notice goes out for a
>>replacement if at all possible (although
>>sometimes I find I have to represent both from
>>our region).  I also  know from personal
>>experience, that sometimes the level of
>>conversation relating to some working group
>>activities (especially on technical issues) are
>>beyond me and you’d never get a word of sense
>>out of me if I was expected to speak on them. In
>>this instance for me, less is more…
>>
>>Maureen
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>metrics.sc mailing list
>>metrics.sc at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/metrics.sc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> metrics.sc mailing list
> metrics.sc at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/metrics.sc