[ALAC] Rules of Procedure - Draft for discussion at 26 March ALAC meeting

[Evan Leibovitch]

On 27 March 2013 16:02, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Except for the fact that I think we need both the info and the vote, not
> just one,  I agree with much of what you wrote about communications, though
> I think stuff should go out from ALAC and from ICANN itself to all ALSes
> directly as well as using the fragile, single person - single point of
> failure, link of the ALS representative.
>

That, then, requires more work from ALAC or staff. Any suggestions how
that's done? The ALS rep, one would hope (*), would know ALS's needs and
perspectives better than those of ALAC or staff.


The interest in informing oneself, however, involves feeling you have a
> stake and a voice as well as the information.
>


The stake and voice already exist -- but they exist at the RALO level. And
some RALOs enable ALSs to direct the vote of their reps.
You can argue that this isn't sufficient (and I wouldn't agree), but it
does exist.

In some countries' voting systems, you vote directly for President. In
other systems you don't, and you might vote for a party which may elect
people you don't know based on proportional representation.. Yet others
think they vote direct, but actually vote for members an "electoral
collage" and *it* picks the President. Such extra levels of indirection do
not necessarily make voters feel unengaged if the chain is sufficiently
trusted. No one system is perfect or necessarily "best" engages
participants.

- Evan


 (*) and there need not be only one rep -- while each ALS has one vote in
RALO matters, it can have multiple participants in discussions and calls
and multiple people invoplved in WGs)