ROP DM DT Meeting 2012.10.01 Summary minutes

Duties and Metrics Drafting Team

Monday 01 October 2012 at 2000 UTC

Summary Minutes and Action Items

1. Roll Call and Apologies (staff - 5 min)

2. Introduction Welcome and Purpose of Call. (meeting chair / staff / group - 10 min)

ROP Template and Sandbox

Roll call

Changes on the outcomes on various meetings

1) Holly to review the position description and ay items to be incorporated

-Holly: Once everything is finalized

-AG: We recognized that we really need to be careful talking about definitions and Glossary (which is a more fleshed out description), definitions should be at the front, and definitions at the back.

The subject was to look at the description and see if there are any substantive functions which need to be defined.

-Look at the SOI and see if this is sufficient. Eduardo reported that ours is pretty similar to what the GNSO is using for SOIs.

-Eduardo: Suggest that the SOIs be updated on a regular basis.

Practice is to ask the question: Is there any update on the SOI?

CLO: I have worked with other volunteer organizations. You  agree to abide by the rules and that covers it..

Carlton: Suggests that we add it.

All agreed.

September 4th- Pag 8.

We changed the preamble to ALAC officers positions and leaving out the statement.

Try to avoid sentence with gender specific references, ex: English she/he.

Sept 20th meeting:

Challenge to put enough substance.

Suggestion that OCL made that perhaps a face to face meeting would be a solution.

What we do in ROP should not be specific. Not go into details and not put numbers down.

The same should be true in "remediation".

Who should not exactly document who does what.

Tijani: The issue is what we mean by performance, we need in the ROP something to define, if we leave it very large and vague, it would not be good.

AG: For the metrics yes we do need examples. Voting, attendance, this is not going to change but this is not an exhaustive list.\

Eduardo's discussion paper is very important and will give people an idea on what type of metrics we are talking about.

OCL: How would you be making sure that remediation will be there without making it too bully. However when one provides example some people think that is all there is.

I am uneasy about the mathematical solutions, we need to have something more "human".

AG: Red flag is an indication of whether this will be a problem

It is the threshold what we need to be concerned about. Otherwise people may have very different ideas.

Dev: Do the metrics need to be approved by the ALAC?

AG: Most definitely.

Tijani: We need to have metrics and criteria and remediation is the human way.

AG: We talked about this in 2009 (Oct) and the parts of teh document in which we need to focus on is that we are dealing with people from different cultures and some cultures handle confrontations well, some cultures do not.

We have to make sure that whatever action the ALAC takes we take into account how different cultures will react and many people will work with each other in other fora. For example a public vote to kick someone out. We are dealing with colleagues whom we will continue to work with in other forum.

Any comments? None

Yaovi: If people are not able to participate and may want to resign.

Discussion paper: (screen).

CLO: Indeed resigning is always possible, but in some cases, it could be a shame, depending on how this is made.

AG: This needs to be done with sensitivity to the person and a group.

AG: The value judgments about people and how they contribute is not completely expressed by the metrics but we do believe we need some metrics.

a) Participation in conference calls-Are these types of #s reasonable.

Tijani: yes , reasonable.

Holly: Instead of thinking about numbers, there are circumstances where there are a lot of conference calls. Supports what Eduardo says

Face to face: at least 2 out of 3.

AG: Holly, you are correct. This is something we can apply numbers to. There are people who have signed up and then don't show up. We need to be careful, though. I sign up for WGs just to be on the mailing list. We need to make sure that we don't interpret signing up with the commitment of doing work.

TBJ: I would like to separate the ALAC members from the At-Large community members signing up to WGs. We need to be clear on who is signing up. We have to ask for full attendance, but only those who are attending ICANN meetings. We also need to say that some people will perhaps miss meetings from time to time. This is because the ALAC has asked them to attend another meeting at that time.

AG: That is something we've talked about. Both Eduardo and I have forgotten about that. When discussion ICANN meetings, we do have an expectation that if you are not sick or not at another meeting you've been asked to attend, you are at the ALAC meeting.

CLO: I think we need to be careful that there should be that an ALAC member, it is an expectation that you 1) take a minimum of leadership roles in a WG or a representational activity. That is in addition to the other minimums. However, where the requirement is that you are a penholder, so may need to be at a Finance and Budget meeting during an ICANN meeting. That is then inter-changeable with those ALAC metric requirements. However, I am not in favor of someone that is chairing and manipulating the agenda to be gone.

AG: I think that is implied. There are core requirements, but they are relaxed if you have other legitimate results.

HR: What happened to the suggestion that Alan made re the requirement that people actually write reports to the meetings at ICANN meetings that they signed up to go to. We may choose we wish to have the Metrics adjunct doc talking about. When we started doing this, it was mainly due to trying to have At-Large reps actually go to these meetings.

HR: I believe this was for other meetings that were not At-Large, but might be of interest for At-Large.

CLO - I was the one who introduced this. If several people are attending one meeting, do they right a group report? I would think that a proper representative would bring it back in some other way. Perhaps on the At-Large skype.

AG: I think email might be a better way.

CLO: You might wish to consider mentoring system to inform newbies.

AG: Need to stress that if you attend a non-At-Large meeting, you have an obligation to report back.

TBJ: Suppose you are attending a meeting on the WCIT and ITU, are you obliged to report back?

AG: I don't think it is obligatory, but it would be nice. I think it depends on what type of meeting it is. We do need to capture this, though.

OCL: I think if At-Large reps are being funded by ICANN, then I think that reporting back should be obligatory.

CLO: That is a good rule of thumb.

AG: I don't know how to capture that in a succinct way, but will think about it.

YA: For example, if we measure over the year, do we have to wait for the end of the year to really appreciate it.

AG: I think we need to do it over a smaller time than one year.

CLO: I disagree partially with metrics connected to mailing lists. This is my pov as a rep of APRALO where not all have free speech.

AG: We need to think about the exact wording. Votes may carry over for several days. For the ExCom and liaisons, have a high expectation. We expect the leadership team to guide the ALAC and make all sorts of small decision. Without geographic balance, this is not possible. So strong participation is required.  1.6 - the expectation that your SOI is up to date. 1.7- mailing list. This is problematic. As CLO notes, people can fill up a mailing list and not make a real contribution. We can't actually measure what people are reading. However, if you never comment during a call or a f2f meeting, that might be a problem.

CLO: The fact that you can fill up mailing lists and not contribute is something we all recognize. There are parts of the APRALO region that can't access the mailing lists. Some might also not feel secure posting something that is a permanent record.

AG: How can we deal with someone like that when our calls and meetings are also recorded and transcribed so are a permanent record.

CLO - I've served as a proxy. However, not posting on a mailing list will not be the only sign of poor performance.

ED: Why don't we just delete that item?

OCL: We could also put it as if you don't have a ...then

AG: Remediation. I suggest that ...the ALAC has the ability to decide that someone is not performing. If the rep is ALAC appointed, then the ALAC takes the decision.

CLO: You have a tick from me. However, I would ask Dev to do the math. If there is the 2/3rd requirement, is there a risk for regional bias? Or should it be a super majority.

AG: The Eduardo doc is silent on that. I believe the 2/3rds was to ensure that a single region could not veto a particular decision. The 2/3 is high enough so that two regions can't ram something through.

CLO: I would like someone like Dev to make sure the math is right. We need to avoid both bias and bind.

AG: I agreed. We need to have people think about it as we gett closer to the end.

TBJ: I find that the paragraph written by ED on the ...responds well to what you said. Perhaps you can change some words and think about cultural aspects.

AG: I think the ROP should be a bit less strict as to the sequence of events. I think the amount of detail there is about right.

AG: The next call is next week for one hour. In a few days you should have some draft ROPs. Please, once they are posted, take notes on what you believe is wrong. You don't have a large period of time. They will be moved over to the template shortly.

CLO: I would like to thank Eduardo and Alan very much. We are getting superb text.

DAT: Item number 7, a secret vote, what does that mean?

AG: It means that it is a secret ballot. No names will be released.

DAT: Regarding funding - is that up to the chair?

AG: Yes.

CLO: It should be the ALAC Chair and the Director for At-Large

AG: For reasons of optics, I wouldn't included ICANN staff. t

CLO: There is trust between the Chair and the Director.