[ALAC] Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure

Tue Oct 9 17:22:14 UTC 2018

At 08/10/2018 07:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>Hello Alan,
>
>Find below a few comments on the RoP and the mail guideline:
>
>Comments on RoP
>11.45 - One needs to be careful with automatically considering all 
>members present via email as it depends on the notice period provided.

Agreed. As a fail-safe action, under 12.1.5, an ALAC Member can 
request that a formal vote be taken instead of the consensus call.

>11.10 - I think it needs to be clear whether all ALT meetings are 
>open to observers or just literately open

This is the exact wording used for ALAC meetings. If Since these 
meetings are less formal than ALAC meetings I didn't think the 
additional rules listed in 11.5.2-11.5.4 were needed, but they could 
be added (or a reference to them).

>17.16 - Which of the "or" does the "whichever comes first" apply to? 
>i assume its the former, if yes then i think that may need rewording 
>to clearly state that.

Will clarify.

>17.2.1 - Am not sure why the added statement is necessary, has there 
>been a scenario where a candidate that had the majority wasn't declared winner?

Perhaps not necessary but clarifies that this rule take precedence 
over 17.2.4. And it doesn't hurt.

>17.2.4.2 - I think options should read "If the drop WILL result 
>in...." I the current text suggest that drop should happen anyway. 
>Secondly i assume you are asking we indicate which option is 
>preferred, if yes i will prefer option B

Noted.

>19.9.1 - Edits suggests that all RALO must agree that BCEC erred, 
>was that the intention? I think that may be very difficult to 
>achieve especially in a highly tense political setup.(am not saying 
>we have that now, but the RoP is to be future proof)

The intent is that for a person to be added to the ballot, three 
RALOs must each feel strongly that the BCEC erred. The BCEC is made 
up of people selected by the RALOs and in the view of the group that 
agreed on this process, it should be a high bar to tell the BCEC that 
it erred. If we do not as a matter of course, trust the BCEC to do 
its deliberations carefully, why do we bother with the process at all?

>19.11.8 - I like the inclusion but i believe the interpretation of 
>abstain needs to be reviewed. That someone abstain should not imply 
>a No as we currently practice. It should simply mean the person does 
>not care hence should not be counted in the total valid votes but 
>should be part of total cast.

The current rules are very clear about what the winning condition is 
(50% of votes cast) so I don't feel comfortable changing those words. 
A change could certainly be possible in the future. For the moment, 
we should focus on saying there should be an Abstain, or not (once 
can always not vote).

>23.1/2 - Are you suggesting we put that phrase or just doing an 
>explanation? if the former i don't think its necessary. I think just 
>23.3 is sufficient.

It would be bad form to have a 23.3 and no 23.1/23.2. People then do 
not know if there is an error or not. And we have (so far) tried to 
never renumber a section, although some day we may need to. We could 
simply say "Omitted" but this is clearer for this revision.

>24 - Similar comment as 23 hence 24.3 should be sufficient
>
>
>Comments on RoP - Email guide
>ALAC (bullet 6) - By ALT's recommendation, does it mean ALAC would 
>consider for approval or that ALT is recommending for 
>implementation. I think it should be decision of ALAC.

My intent was to make this automatic unless the ALAC over-rode (ie 
notification but not needing approval) to reduce the number of 
rubber-stamp ALAC decisions. And it had been universally accepted as 
a good thing (so far). If it needs a formal ALAC decision, it is 
already covered under the last bullet.

>ALAC (bullet 8,9) - Am not sure who periodic affirmation mean, can 
>you clarify your intention? Is it just to check with the individual 
>if they still like to remain subscribed? if yes then i think there 
>should be a definite period for that.

The theory when we wrote this was that annually we would ask. But the 
list of such people is long and doing it annually would be a big 
chore (and in practice we do not get around to it. Thus the suggested 
change. It is rare that someone has asked to be taken off (and they 
always could at any time), so the impact is minimal.

>ALAC-Internal (bullet 3) - I honestly feel the ALAC list is too 
>large and i don't think bullet point 3 should be included as i don't 
>see the added value. At best i think only the liasons should be included

This is no change from the current practice - it just uses a new term 
not defined at the time this document was originally written and 
moves some from the last bullet to the third. The only current 
advisors who are not Liaisons are past ALAC Chairs.

>ALAC-ExCom (bullet 3) - Same comment as internal
>
>ALAC-Announce - Subscription method phrase changed to "see members" 
>i think it also needs to be clear if its staff subscrbed or not.

There is no change here. It is a reference to the above section where 
it says that Staff subscribes formal reps and anyone else may self-subscribe.

>AFRI-DISCUSS (bullet 3) - Lets include individual members as well. 
>Comment applicable to other RALO lists

well, they may already be self-subscribed, but I agree they need to 
be mentioned. For all RALOs.

>Line 34 - Is it referring to communication on the list or the 
>information of the mailman itself?

Communications on the list.

Alan

>Regards
>
>
>
>
>On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:46 PM Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>As I am about to relinquish the honor of being the Chair of the 
>ALAC, I would like to leave things in reasonable order. There are a 
>number of overdue changes needed to the Rules of Procedure (RoP) and 
>associated documents.
>
>To summarize, our overall rule set includes:
>
>Rules of Procedure: We have a backlog of correction, clarifications 
>and changes to address issues that have arisen or to bring the RoP 
>in line with current practices.
>
>Adjunct Document 01: "Position Description for ALAC Members, 
>Liaisons and Appointees" I expect to be considered by the ARIWG in 
>relation to Issue 16 (Metrics)
>
>Adjunct Document 02: "Metrics and Remedial Actions for ALAC Members 
>and Appointees" was never written but to the extent it is needed, it 
>should also be considered in relation to Issue 16.
>
>Adjunct Document 03: "At-Large Board Member Selection 
>Implementation" should not need any immediate attention. The 
>Selection process was referenced in the Review (Issue 6) but our 
>proposal that was accepted by the Board disagreed with the Review 
>Team and said that we will not address it in the Review 
>Implementation. We may of course re-open that discussion at any 
>point in the future if changes is needed.
>
>Adjunct Document 04: "At-Large Structure Framework" will no doubt be 
>reviewed and likely changed as part of addressing Review Issue 2 
>(ALS and Individual Membership).
>
>ALAC E-mail Guide: There are a number of corrections and changes 
>needed to being the document in line with current ALAC practice (and 
>reduce routine work).
>
>
>
>Accordingly I am proposing a set of changes to the ALAC Rules of 
>Procedure and the ALAC E-mail Guide. The RoP call for at least 21 
>calendar days notice and and this message will allow us to vote on 
>the amendments at the Wrap-Up Session in Barcelona. There will also 
>be time allocated for discussion in Barcelona, but hopefully any 
>need for change can be brought up and resolved via e-mail prior to travel.
>
>I will do a very brief overview of the changes on the ALAC call 
>later today, and we can have a dedicated call if people wish.
>
>Attached is the redline revision of the RoP as well as a Change Log 
>explaining each of the changes.
>
>Also attached is the redline E-mail Guide. All of the changes are 
>either clear corrections or changes to reflect current practice 
>(such as including the any ALT Advisor in the ALT or ALAC lists, and 
>including key working group chairs in the ALAC list).
>
>Alan
>
>_______________________________________________
>ALAC mailing list
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
>
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Seun Ojedeji,
>Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>web:     <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>Mobile: +2348035233535
>alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> 
><mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>
>Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20181009/eb720579/attachment.html>