[ALAC] ALAC Rule of Procedure for Selecting Director

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sun Aug 22 15:41:32 UTC 2010


I think that there is a large intersection and 
hopefully the issues that are of interest to 
users are fully contained within At-Large 
(sometimes the poor response from the majority of 
At-Large in specific user-related issues makes me 
wonder). But not necessarily the other way. For 
instance, if you took a poll of active At-Large 
people regarding the current discussion on GAs 
and a Summit. the answer surely come out that it 
is important. If you took a poll of Internet 
users not involved with ICANN, I do not think the result would be the same.

That doesn't mean that it would not be in the 
long term interest of users to have a vibrant 
ICANN At-Large and thus GAs and a Summit would be 
good for them. But that requires a series of 
logical deductions that may or may not be obvious to some.

Does that make it any clearer?

Alan

At 22/08/2010 08:36 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
>Alan,
>
>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.
>
>Hummm, you believe At-Large and Internet user 
>community don’t have the same interest

>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>Tijani BEN JEMAA
>Executive Director
>Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations
>Phone : + 216 70 825 231
>Mobile : + 216 98 330 114
>Fax     : + 216 70 825 231
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
>[mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg
>Envoyé : dimanche 22 août 2010 03:52
>À : Hong Xue
>Cc : ALAC Working List
>Objet : Re: [ALAC] ALAC Rule of Procedure for Selecting Director
>
>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_p 
> rocedure>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



More information about the ALAC mailing list