[ALAC] ALAC Rule of Procedure for Selecting Director

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sun Aug 22 18:27:30 UTC 2010


Adam, you may well be right about the correct tactic being to at this 
point make the case to continue the Liaison. In that case, we need to 
be building the salient piece of advice to the Board REALLY QUICKLY. 
I know that I and others would certainly support this, but the 
question is can we make a case for a majority of Board members to 
accept it. And certainly the partial answer is that we won't know if 
we don't try.

But I do think that there is some danger of Directors who do not like 
the idea of a voting At-Large director rejecting the Bylaws if they 
see and alternative, so we do need to keep that in mind also.

BTW, I don't equate not having a Liaison with no longer being a Board 
Advisory Committee.

Alan

At 22/08/2010 03:45 AM, 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.ican 
> n.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




More information about the ALAC mailing list