<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
A few short further comments.<br>
<br>
At 06/07/2019 07:28 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Thank you ALAN for your mail. I agree with you on some points and I disagree on others:<br>
<br>
I agree with you that a consultation with the RALO is mandatory as per the ICANN Bylaw<br>
<br>
I agree with you that any decision to accept or reject a RALO recommendation or appoint someone else is a decision of the ALAC<br>
<br>
I also agree with you that there has been a distinct lack of communication in all directions in the current situation<br>
<br>
And I finally agree with you that the proposal that Mohamed just made to have an internal selection process is the right way forward. It is based on Maureen’s proposal that I also applaud<br>
<br>
But I strongly disagree with you that the ALAC Chair who is doing a reasonable job should make discreet (that is private and confidential) discussion with some ALAC members to make sure there is a strong consensus on how to proceed.<br>
The discussion must be with <b><u>all</u></b> ALAC members (except those who have a conflict of interest if any), in a closed meeting as we did in Panama last year, not with some of them. Why some and not all? I’m not with decisions prepared behind the doors
among “a small group†of friends.</blockquote>
<br>
I cannot speak for Maureen, but I can say that in my experience (and there were far more than one instance where I was in a similar situation, the Chair may consult with those in the ALT, or with selected ALAC members. Reasons for NOT including a particular
person may include (as you suggest) a conflict of interest (real or perceived) or not wanting to put the person in an awkward or uncomfortable position. In some cases, (as was the case last year), consultation with all may be appropriate. It is up to the Chair
to decide what is best in a given case.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""> <br>
I also disagree with your allusion to the fact that if the RALO recommendation is not accepted, ALAC can appoint a delegate to the NomCom without going back to the RALO or even the RALO Chair. You were prudent enough to say “there is no formal requirementâ€.
But even that, I disagree with because the formal requirement is in the bylaws article 12.2.(d)(v): The ALAC shall, after consultation with each RALO, annually appoint five voting delegates (no two of whom shall be citizens of countries in the same Geographic
Region) to the Nominating Committee.</blockquote>
<br>
I think that one consultation meets the requirements. We will have to agree to disagree on this one.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""> <br>
So ALAC appoints <b><u>after</u></b> consultation with the concerned RALO, not directly without going back to the RALO. Your explanation is that since the RALO proposed a name, it was consulted. My explanation is different based on the fact that there is no
formal permission to the ALAC to appoint without going back to the RALO, and on the fact that ICANN has a governance model based on a bottom up decision making system. If ALAC appoints without going back to the RALO, its decision is top down<br>
<br>
My other disagreement is about your contestation about us often focus more on "democratic" procedures than on making sure we select knowledgeable and capable people for all positions.<br>
<br>
Do you mean the democratic process prevents the selection of the best people????<br>
Our AFRALO community shose so far very good delegates to the NomCom using their democratic process: Yaovi Atohoun, Mohamed El Bashir, Dave kissoondoyal, Fatimata Seye Sylla and Aziz Hilali. You can ask for their 360 evaluation to see that they performed very
well. Also, this year, our community made a good choice but there was an issue for him.</blockquote>
<br>
I was not commenting on AFRALO recommendations for the NomCom in prior years. I was commenting on our appointment process in general where we have often had very unqualified candidates for various positions. In many cases they are not appointed for one reason
or another. On some occasions, they are!<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">Do you think that Smaller group deciding instead of the whole members will make a better decision?<br>
How do you guarantee that this small group will not choose people that they want (not the best or the best among their friends)??<br>
<br>
Of course, we need knowledgeable and capable people. I still think that the democratic process is the right one to have the best people if the eligibility criteria are well defined in advance for each position, and if they don’t change according to the will
of the chair or any other influent person. The solution is not to have smaller number of persons deciding instead of the whole members. The solution is in a pre-defined objective eligibility criteria for each position.</blockquote>
<br>
I agree completely. It is the testing to see whether the criteria are met that I feel our current processes often do not address. Our processes presume that the electorate will carefully consider all of the issues. An example is where staff posted the WRONG
EoI for a candidate (it was CLEARLY wrong) but no one in the electorate even noticed, so one has to ask on what basis the person was selected (regardless of whether they were indeed a good candidate). Selection committees doing triage should remedy that. That
does not preclude a democratic election of those that meet the criteria.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""> <br>
ICANN is a bottom-up decision making organization. ALAC and At-Large must be and remain so as well.<br>
<br>
<br>
Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a> > a écrit :<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""><br>
I have avoided commenting during this process but now that we seem to<br>
be in a level postilion, I do have a few comments to make.<br>
<br>
Please note that these comments are NOT in reference to ANY candidate<br>
but are in relation to the process.<br>
<br>
- In accordance with the ICANN Bylaws and the ALAC Rules of Procedure<br>
(RoP), the Nominating Committee delegates are selected by the ALAC. A<br>
consultation with the RALO is mandatory.<br>
<br>
- Any decision to accept a RALO recommendation or appoint someone<br>
else is a decision of the ALAC. The Chair may certainly make a<br>
recommendation, but ultimately it is an ALAC decision. Prior to a<br>
Chair making such a formal recommendation, if he or she is doing a<br>
reasonable job, there would have been discreet (that is private and<br>
confidential) discussion with some or all advisors and ALAC Members<br>
to make sure there is a strong consensus on how to proceed. That is<br>
the process that I have followed in a similar situation last year and<br>
it is my understanding is that this is exactly the process that<br>
Maureen has followed.<br>
<br>
- If a RALO candidate is not ratified (or recommended to not be<br>
ratified), there is no formal requirement to go back to the RALO or<br>
even the RALO Chair.<br>
<br>
- Since we regularly (over many years) seem to have various people<br>
not understanding the NomCom delegate selection process, perhaps it<br>
is time to clarify the ALAC RoP.<br>
<br>
- All of the above notwithstanding, there has been a distinct lack of<br>
communications in all directions in the current situation, and that<br>
is a problem that needs to be rectified - and it cannot be fixed with rules.<br>
<br>
- The proposal that Mohamed just made, to have an internal selection<br>
process is one I applaud. If I understood correctly Remmy Nweke had<br>
earlier made such a suggestion. In my opinion, we (and that is both<br>
the ALAC and all RALOs) have often focused more on "democratic"<br>
procedures and not sufficiently on making sure we select<br>
knowledgeable and capable people for all positions. It is not<br>
typically sufficient to simply ask for volunteers (who may or may not<br>
have ANY of the skills needed) and then have a vote that is really a<br>
popularity contest and not a true evaluation of the candidates. For<br>
the ALAC, the situation has been largely remedied with the ALAC<br>
Appointee Selection Committee that began 3 years ago.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
AFRI-Discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:AFRI-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org">AFRI-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/afri-discuss" eudora="autourl">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/afri-discuss</a><br>
<br>
Homepage for the region: <a href="http://www.afralo.org">http://www.afralo.org</a><br>
<br>
Posting guidelines to ensure machine translations of emails sent to this list are more accurate:
<a href="http://www.funredes.org/mistica/english/emec/method_emec/presentation.html#anexo1">
http://www.funredes.org/mistica/english/emec/method_emec/presentation.html#anexo1</a>
<br>
_______________________________________________By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy">
https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos"> https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including
unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<b>Tijani BENJEMAA</b><br>
Executive Director<br>
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (<b>FMAI</b>)<br>
Telephone: +216 52 385 114<br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>