[ALAC] ALAC Rule of Procedure for Selecting Director

Sun Aug 22 08:01:02 UTC 2010

And... another option would be to follow Evan's proposal made during 
the Brussels meeting to have ALAC sign-off on policy (broadly 
similar, I think, to GAC's role)

At 12:46 PM +0200 6/24/10, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>
>  Desspite our serious protest, it appears that At-Large will be
>transitioning from a liaison to the Board to electing (er, *selecting*) a
>member of the Board (who will then be organizationally independant of
>At-Large).
>
>Given this loss of direct influence, I offer this comment:
>
>At yesterday's EURALO Showcase, Board member Dennis Jennings clearly stated
>that ALAC ought to have a stronger role as part of ICANN's policy
>development process. I agree. We should consider proposing to the SIC that
>At-Large oversight / signoff be a required "check mark" in all ICANN policy
>development (such as GNSO PDPs). (Think of this the way that a building plan
>being proposed in a city has to have sign-off approval by engineering,
>environmental assessment, public works, etc). There may be some fears that
>this constitutes a potential ALAC veto of GNSO policy -- while I wouild like
>that personally, that may be too much to ask. However, we should have the
>right to send back for revision, parts of policy which we perceive to be
>clearly against the public interest.
>
>Later at the same event, Board member Jean-Jacques Subrenat acknowledged
>that At-Large tasks and responsibilities are growing faster than its staff
>support, and risks falling behind through no fault of its own.
>
>If these comments are sincere -- and  I have no reason to believe they are
>not -- then we have an opportunity to direct our evolving role, rather than
>to allow others to evolve it for us,.
>
>--
>- Evan

I'd prefer us to argue for all options.

Adam

At 4:45 PM +0900 8/22/10, Adam Peake wrote:
>Alan, I don't agree we are facing an either or situation: we do not
>have to choose between having a voting director and liaison, we can
>and should argue for both.
>
>That there will be a voting director for at large is certain, the
>board will not go back on that decision now.  But the liaison
>position is not gone and trying to keep it is important to the future
>of ALAC's ability to provide advice to the board and community.
>Unlike the supporting organizations, and even GAC, the bylaws do not
>require ICANN to take At Large's advice. The new director can
>certainly represent user interests, but we know they cannot be our
>representative on the board.
>
>Suggest that the bylaws amendments you have drafted go forward,
>except that we do not accept the sections deleting the liaison.  We
>can provide text to explain why (I've written some before on this
>list.)
>
>In addition to weakening At Large/ALAC's ability to provide
>advice/recommendations to the board, if we loose the board advisory
>role the supporting organizations we currently have liaisons with may
>re-consider those relationships.  I know some constituencies have
>already mentioned this.
>
>And I think it's mistaken to think that once the at large director is
>in place we can return to arguing for the (then lost) liaison role
>and even the second director position the At Large review
>recommended. The board will consider that part of the review done, I
>can't see them reopening the process. Won't happen, at least not
>until the next review, many years from now.
>
>I think it's important the RALOs discuss this and come back with advice.
>
>Adam
>
>
>
>
>>Well, the Board resolution on which this is all based was very clear
>>about replacing the Liaison with the voting Board member. If our
>>intent is to turn back the clock and go back to just a Liaison (as
>>some people indeed feel would be best and have since the start of
>>these discussions), then this is a good time to raise the issue. If
>>we really want the voting Board member, then my inclination is to get
>>that put in place and then based on experience, try to argue for
>>putting  back the Liaison (presumably instead of a second voting
>>Board member).
>  >
>>I just don't see how we could get both at the same time at this
>>moment. There are certainly some Board members who want to see the
>>voting position go forward, and no doubt some who would prefer the
>>status quo. I don't think there are many who would buy one voting and
>>one liaison at this time.
>>
>>It's not a perfect situation, but that is how I read things. We need
>>to make up our minds which is more important and go for it.
>>
>>My personal opinion is that At-Large would be better served by a
>>Liaison, but that Internet user community is better served by a good
>>voting Board member.
>>
>>Alan
>>
>>At 21/08/2010 08:25 PM, Hong Xue wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks to Alan for the comprehensive comments. Another issue that
>>>has been raised in Brussels but not sufficiently discussed ever
>>>since is whether we want to advocate to keep the Board liaison along
>>>with the selected At-Large Board Member. To my memory, draft bylaws
>>>replace the liaison with the Board member. We may wish to comment on
>>>this specific point as well.
>>>
>>>Hong
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Alan Greenberg
>>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>>>While drafting my comments on the draft Bylaws associated with the
>>>At-Large Director, I realized that we will need to formally put our
>>>selection procedures into the ALAC Rules of Procedure (RoP).
>>>
>>>I have done a first draft which can be found at
>>><https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_rule_27>https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_rule_27.
>>>I am also attaching a PDF version for your convenience.
>>>
>>>The current RoP (Rev10) is pointed to at
>>><https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure>https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure.
>>>
>>>The new draft rule includes Rationale's for some of the sub-rules.
>>>These rationales would not be part of the final rule, but are there
>>   >to explain what I am proposing.
>>>
>>>With a few exceptions, the draft corresponds to the process that has
>>>been agreed upon and has been given to the Board SIC. They are
>>>specified in general terms, to allow the process to be refined based
>>>on what we learn during this current process, and without having to
>>>formally alter the RoP each time.
>>>
>>>There are two new parts that I am suggesting.
>>>
>>>First, although we have had some general discussions about proxy
>>>voting, we have never agreed on any rules, and we never discussed
>>>this in the context of the At-Large Director selection process. I am
>>>suggesting that we allow proxies *IF* we come up with some general
>>>rules (applicable for all votes) or if we develop some for the
>>>Director selection process only. Essentially this rule says that
>>>proxies are allowed *IF* we define exactly how they will work. If we
>>>do this, it will ensure that we do not disenfranchise some RALOs.
>>>
>>>Second, our voting methodology said that we will use random
>>>selection in the case of a tie. I think that it would be a really
>>>poor outcome if we end up selecting our Director by a random
>>>selection. I am proposing that if there is a tie, that the vote can
>>>be held a second time which would allow some voters to alter their
>>>vote. This *may* reduce the need for random selection.
>>>
>>>I am suggesting that we discuss this on the list and schedule a vote
>>>for the next ALAC meeting. I suggest that staff take any messages
>>>posted to the list and add them as comments to the wiki. If we
>>>cannot come to closure in the remaining time, the vote could be
>>>delayed, but it is important that we have the rule in place sometime
>>>in the near future.
>>>
>>>To adopt a new rule or change existing rules, it takes a 2/3 vote of
>>>all ALAC members who are voting in that ballot.
>>>
>>>I look forward to hearing comments on this.
>>>
>>>Alan
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>ALAC mailing list
>>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>
>>>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>>ALAC Working Wiki: <http://st.icann.org/alac>http://st.icann.org/alac
>  >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Dr. Hong Xue
>>>Professor of Law
>>>Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
>>>Beijing Normal University
>>><http://iipl.org.cn/>http://iipl.org.cn/
>>>19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
>>>Beijing 100875 China
>>_______________________________________________
>>ALAC mailing list
>>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>
>>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac
>
>_______________________________________________
>ALAC mailing list
>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac