[ALAC] ALAC Working Methods - Was: Endorsements: Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team

Fri Nov 27 02:29:57 UTC 2015

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 27 Nov 2015 00:12, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> I now think I understand the issue here, and it is indeed an issue of how
the ALAC works.
>
SO: I am glad to read this part ;-)

<snip> Thanks for explaining the process.
>. So if only 1 or 2 ALAC members disagree with something, we can still
claim to have consensus. with 3/15 (20%), it is right on the line and I
would probably not declare a consensus is in that case. In the case at
hand, one person disagreed. That should not be ignored (and I did explain
why I disagreed), and no one else supported your position.
>
SO: Yes correct and that is absolutely understandable by me as it's similar
to how we observe consensus within AfriNIC (where I serve as Co-Chair). The
difference is that Chair always come back to declare the outcome so we can
move to next item

>
So I felt that there was a strong (but not unanimous) consensus to proceed
with the plan.
>

SO: This is where the confusion came for me as it was not possible to know
what the Chair felt remotely(at times it's not physically ;-) ). I was
being careful not to act on what has not been declared by the Chair (
AFRALO leadership on this list, would confirm that we were making plans at
AFRALO level but just waiting for the declaration from Chair). So I guess
going forward, it should be clear on how many number of days (or hours) one
should wait for any opposing view before assuming consensus (even if the
Chair did not formerly declare it)

> Hopefully this particular case, and our general methodology is now clear.
>

SO: Yes indeed, and hopefully the motivation for me abstaining when we
voted is also now understood. Now that we are clear, I do like to formerly
update my abstain to a +1 (if it's possible)

Regards
> Alan
>
>
> At 24/11/2015 03:59 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
>> Hello Alan,
>>
>> Just for the record, here is the follow-up mail I sent to the list and I
also sent you a private follow-up message when I did not hear from you Alan
(both of which did not receive a response).
>>
>> There was discussion on item 1 of what you said you required and there
was no indication on whether item 2 and 3 was in effect so I wrote
requesting confirmation of that. This could also be an issue with me
getting used to how ALAC operates but perhaps your response would have
helped.
>>
>> For the record, AFRALO would have organised her nominations just that
we(I) thought there was still discussion on item 1 and that item 2 and 3
was pending.
>>
>> Regards
>> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>> On 18 Nov 2015 13:01, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com > wrote:
>>
>> Hello Alan,
>>
>> Can you confirm if your proposal for 1 nomination each at ALAC and RALO
level respectively is now in effect? so regions can organise. Will be good
to know the deadline for the nomination.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>> On 18 Nov 2015 00:59, "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > wrote:
>> There is no formal rule against endorsing candidates who did not
identify ALAC in the application. However, I see little merit in evaluating
all 72 applications, and for the reasons that Cheryl, outlines, I do not
think it proper for us to unilaterally "adopt" a candidate.
>>
>> If you know of someone who you think we should consider, please let me
know and I will contact them privately.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> At 17/11/2015 12:50 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> That is a good idea, but I would prefer to do this endorsement and then
establish the rules associated with the group's ongoing task. There is not
enough time to do that properly and have it formally sanctioned by the ALAC
and then get this endorsement carried out.
>>
>> Regarding selection of candidates who did not identify ALAC of a target
group. Good question. I will look into it.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> At 17/11/2015 02:39 AM, SÃ©bastien Bachollet wrote:
>> Thanks Alan for putting the proposal together,
>> I support your proposal.
>> It is important that we embarque in this choice both ALAC and the Ralos.
>>
>> However, can we have this group set-up for one year and to be in charge
of
>> all the endorsements during that year?
>>
>> One question: Can we support people even if they didnÂ¹t ask for ALAC
>> endorsement?
>>
>> All the best
>>
>>
>> Skills are useful but diversity is essential.
>>
>> SÃ©bastien Bachollet
>> +33 6 07 66 89 33
>> Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/
>> Mail: SÃ©bastien Bachollet <sebastien at bachollet.com >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 17/11/2015 03:12, Â« Alan Greenberg Â»
>> < alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of
>> alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > a Ã©crit :
>>
>> >In Dublin I suggested that the ALT recommend who to endorse for the
>> >Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team and there
>> >was a strong feeling within the ALAC that this responsibility not be
>> >given to the ALT. The applicants have now been announced and we need
>> >to decide who to endorse
>> >- https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/aoc/cct/applications.
>> >
>> >I suggest that we use the same composition for the selection team as
>> >we have for a number of other recent groups, for each region, one
>> >ALAC Member selected by the Members from that region, and one person
>> >selected by the RALO leadership. No one who has submitted an
>> >application is eligible to serve of the endorsement group. All team
>> >members will need to:
>> >
>> >- Be familiar with the purpose of the Review
>> >(
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-e
>> >n).
>> >- Review the Applications.
>> >- Prepare a brief evaluation of each candidate (details to be provided).
>> >
>> >Endorsements are due no later than 14 December.
>> >
>> >Nine people indicated that they were seeking ALAC endorsements, five
>> >seeking only an ALAC endorsement, and four list multiple alternatives.
>> >
>> >I am happy to have the ALAC delegate the endorsements to this group,
>> >and if the ALAC agrees, there will be no need for the ALAC to ratify
>> >the endorsements.
>> >
>> >We will be scheduling the first (and possibly only) meeting of the
>> >group for the week on November 30th, so please submit names within
>> >the next week to ensure that we can select a suitable time for the
>> >meeting.
>> >
>> >To be clear, I am looking for:
>> >
>> >1. Any objections to having the group make the endorsements without
>> >further ALAC action.
>> >
>> >2. The name of the ALAC member from each region to participate in the
>> >endorsement process.
>> >
>> >3. The name of the regional appointee from each region to participate
>> >in the endorsement process.
>> >
>> >Alan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >ALAC mailing list
>> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>> >
>> >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> >ALAC Working Wiki:
>> >
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(A
>> >LAC)
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ALAC mailing list
>> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>>
>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>> ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20151127/24aa1f75/attachment.html>