[ALAC] CONSENSUS CALL: My comments on Draft Bylaws
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat May 21 02:43:29 UTC 2016
I agree. No need to be specific as to who would
take on the role. Each AC/SO has full ability to make its own selection.
Alan
At 20/05/2016 02:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote:
>I tend to agree that once selected/elected to
>seat at board and being at the time to be
>observer – (some time before general assembbly),
>I believe person shall be free from other
>positions and a replaced process shall be in
>place. Meantime one vice chair could respond for
>the AC/SO position till new selection/election
>process to fill this position is finished.
>Best,
>Vanda Scartezini
>Polo Consultores Associados
>Av. Paulista 1159 # 1004
>01311-200 – Sao Paulo/SP – Brazil
>Phone: + 55 11 3266-6253
>Mobile: + 55 11 98181-1464
>
>From: <alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on
>behalf of Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
>Date: Friday, May 20, 2016 at 2:58 AM
>To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>Cc: ALAC Working List <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [ALAC] CONSENSUS CALL: My comments on Draft Bylaws
>
>
>Sent from my LG G4
>Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>On 19 May 2016 18:13, "Alan Greenberg"
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> >
> > At 19/05/2016 12:23 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> >
> >> As proposed in the CCWG proposal, the
> Chair's of SO/AC would represent the EC.
> >
> >
> > Or it could be someone else if the AC/SO chose.
> >
>
>SO: Yes that's right.
>
> >
> >> In the case of AtLarge that will be the
> ALAC Chair. At the moment noting prevents an
> ALAC Chair from being nominated as a board
> member just that he/she will need to resign
> his/her Chair position if he happens to make it
> to the board. In that case, there will be no
> room for concurrent occupant of the EC and of
> the board(either liaison or voting).
> >
> >
> > He/she would clearly have to resign the EC position immediately.
> >
>SO: Hmm... By immediately, do you mean after
>occupying the board seat? Or Prior to
>nomination? If the latter then it may not be
>inline with what I understand to be the intent your write-up
>
> >
>Whether would have to resign the Chair position
>prior to actually being seated is an interesting question.
> >
>SO: Well I think there is some logic and time
>factor here; in the case of AtLarge elected
>board member, once the AtLarge(ALAC) completes
>her selection process, I would expect that such
>person would resign his/her ALAC/AtLarge
>position (either chair or not) and same should
>be the case if it was a nomcom position seat as
>well. Now I am focusing on AtLarge here as I
>believe each SO/AC should have independence in
>setting their process and we should not restrict
>them at the bylaw level expect ensuring that one
>person does not occupy EC and Board simultaneously.
>
> >
>
>Since the Board tend to allow incoming Directors
>to be observers, resignation would probably be
>required immediate, but perhaps there would be
>reasons to stay temporarily as Chair and NOT be an observer on the Board.
> >
>
>SO: Yeah resignation is required as per section
>5.4.2 of the current bylaw, i think its an ideal
>thing to do and i don't see any possible reason
>why someone elected/selected to be on the board
>would want to still maintain previous positions
>in anyway. There will always be people to fill
>such a seat (ofcourse may not be as good as the
>out-gone but Rome is not built in a day)
>
> >
> >
> >> My question then would be to know if we
> currently identified conflict of interest(and
> such disallow) in our current board member
> selection/nomination process where a sitting
> Chair cannot be nominated? If that exist then I
> will have to differ on my previous stand and agree with Tijani.
> >
> >
> > There are NO general restrictions about who
> can apply for a Board position other than they
> cannot currently be on the NomCom. An AC/SO
> might have local rules. There are none for the
> ALAC that relate to this, other than Board
> applicants cannot sit on the two selection committees we have.
> >
>
>SO: Yeah thats my thought as well. So it means my initial support still stand.
>
> > Such a rule has never been suggested that I
> am aware of. And given the example with several
> sitting (non-At-Large) Board members, I would not want such a rule.
> >
>
>SO: There are some merits/demerits of having
>such rule and we can always discuss that latter,
>but if we must then it would be at AtLarge level
>as we don't have to lockin(restrict) the bylaw that much.
>
>Regards
>
> > Alan
> >
> >> Otherwise I think the fix should be at our
> board selection process instead; by requiring
> that sitting Chair cannot be nominated for board talkless of being elected.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Sent from my LG G4
> >> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
> >> On 19 May 2016 16:56, "Tijani BEN JEMAA"
> <<mailto:tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn> tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn> wrote:
> >> Alan,
> >> I support your comment on
> >> Section 4.6(e)(v) but not 7.4(d) because I
> don̢۪t find it a pr problem to restrict to
> someone who is serving on the EC administration
> to be simultaneously on the board or to be
> candidate to such position. I even find it a
> kind of avoiding the concentration of power in the hands of a single person.
> >>
> >> So please record my full support to your
> comments on section 4.6(e)(v) and my opposition to those about section 7.4(d).
> >>
> >>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Tijani BEN JEMAA
> >> Executive Director
> >> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
> >> Phone:<tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114> +216 98 330 114
> >> <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114> +216 52 385 114
> >>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Le 19 mai 2016 Ã 14:56, Alan Greenberg
> <<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > a écrit :
> >>> Most of the comments I made (sent to the
> CCWG list and IANA-Issues lists) have either
> been completely integrated into the CCWG
> comments or are not particularly important.
> There are two that I feel still have merit. I
> have reviewed them with the ALT, and I have
> their full support (including Cheryl and Leon
> who have been very involved in the current
> draft Bylaws as well as the more recent
> comments of the CCWG itself on the draft
> Bylaws. I am not making these comments without
> considerable thought. IN BOTH CASES, IF THE
> CURRENT DRAFT BYLAWS ARE IMPLEMENTED, I BELIEVE
> THAT ICANN WILL BE FOLLOWING A PATH THAT WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT ALL OF US.
> >>> I will be submitting these comments to the
> Public Comment on my own behalf, but I would
> like to be able to say that they are supported
> by the ALAC prior to the close of the comment
> oat 23:59 on Saturday. I would appreciate
> explicit statements of support, but in the
> absence of significant opposition, I will say
> that the comments are those of the ALAC.
> >>> Alan
> >>> PS I will not be submitting the comment
> until later today. If you notice any typos, please let me know ASAP.
> >>> =============================
> >>> Background:
> >>> The Affirmation of Commitment (AoC) Reviews
> are now being integrated into the Bylaws. The
> AoC called for the reviews to be held every
> three years, but was unclear as to when the
> three years was measured from. The three years
> has been interpreted flexibly to allow more
> time between some reviews and the Board has
> deferred some reviews due to community overload
> (with the agreement of the NTIA, the AoC
> co-signer). The CCWG required the new reviews
> to be carried out no less frequently than every
> five years, measured from the start of one
> review until the start of the next one. It was
> recently realized that the last WHOIS review
> started in October 2010, so when the new Bylaws
> are adopted, we will already be several months
> past the October 2015 date for the next one to
> start and will need to initiate the next one immediately.
> >>> Since the required review is an
> Registration Directory Services Review, renamed
> from WHOIS Review, we would technically NOT be
> in default, since there never has been an "RDS
> Review". But it is assumed that this
> distinction will not affect ICANN's actions.
> >>> Section 4.6(e)(v)
> >>> During the CCWG discussions on the interval
> between the reviews, the issue of ICANN
> immediately being in default on the WHOIS/RDS
> review was never raised. Moreover, since those
> discussions were held, the GNSO new RDS PDPWG
> has been convened and is well underway. It is
> reasonably clear that the people in the
> volunteer community who would likely
> participate in an RDS review significantly
> overlap with those who are heavily involved in
> the RDS PDP. To schedule an RDS Review soon
> after the Bylaws are enacted would be serious
> error and will only serve to slow the work of
> the PDP - a PDP that even now may go on for quite some time.
> >>>
> >>> It is clear that there is work that needs
> to be done that would fall under the auspices
> of a full blown PDP. We need a good picture of
> how the various current WHOIS/RDS efforts mesh
> together. We need to assess how the
> recommendations of the first WHOIS review are
> being implemented and their impact, as well as
> other WHOIS/RDS related activities unrelated to that last AoC review.
> >>> But these efforts, as important as they
> are, do not need to be done by a full-blown
> AoC-like review. Most of the work can be done
> by staff. To the extent that "staff cannot be
> trusted" (something that I question, but will
> address), I am others in the community will
> gladly act as a sounding block and review their
> work. [For the record, I was the person on the
> ATRT2 who did the full analysis of the WHOIS RT
> Recommendation implementation, so I have some idea of what I am talking about.]
> >>> The current Bylaws for the organizational
> reviews all have explicit time limits in them,
> but also have the words "if feasible". That was
> true even when the organization review interval
> was (foolishly) three years instead of the five
> years it was quickly changed to. "If feasible"
> allowed the Board to save an immense amount of
> wasted community expense and ICANN dollars. We
> need some wriggle room in the current case as well.
> >>> I strongly suggest that the draft Bylaws be
> revised to allow additional flexibility to
> defer the RDS review until there is a real RDS
> to review, and would even suggest that once
> implemented, they soon after be amended to add the missing "if feasible".
> >>>
> >>> =============================
> >>> Background:
> >>> The CCWG Proposal requires the Empowered
> Community (EC) to take a variety of actions but
> was not specific on exactly how this would
> happen or what people would take responsibility
> for ensuring that the actions are carried out.
> As a result this had to be addressed during
> Bylaw drafting. The concept of the EC
> Administration was created, embodied by the
> Chairs (or other delegates) of the AC/SOs participating in the EC.
> >>> Along with the creation (or perhaps
> identification, since there was always a need
> for such a body/group) of the EC
> Administration, a section was added to the
> draft Bylaws placing restrictions on the people
> involved in the EC Administration.
> >>>
> >>> Section 7.4(d)
> >>> "No person who serves on the EC
> Administration while serving in that capacity
> shall be considered for nomination or
> designated to the Board, nor serve
> simultaneously on the EC Administration and as
> a Director or Liaison to the Board."
> >>> Lawyers Comments (in reply to my early raising of this issue):
> >>> On March 31, 2016, counsel posed the
> following question to the Bylaws Coordination
> Group and received confirmation that the
> disqualification in Section 7.4(d) be included
> in the Bylaws: "Confirm that chairs of the
> Decisional Participants and persons designated
> by the Decisional Participants to serve on the
> EC Chairs Council cannot be nominated or serve
> on the ICANN Board. Such a provision would be
> consistent with other provisions in the current Byl
>_______________________________________________
>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/20160520/52d15548/attachment.html>
More information about the ALAC
mailing list