[ALAC] Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
ocl at gih.com
Wed Oct 10 16:34:39 UTC 2018
Dear Seun, Alan,
On 10/10/2018 14:11, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
>
> SO: I was one of the last BSMPC or is it BCEC and remember that
> recommendation and i agree with 3 RALOs, but the current wording
> suggests all RALOs must have to support the petition from a particular
> RALO.
The number of supporting RALOs is given in 19.9.3 but I agree that there
is some potential for ambiguity/confusion in 19.9.1.
May I suggest:
19.9.1 Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs
have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if RALOs
believe that the BCEC did not make a good decision in omitting a
candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations within a RALO,
and outreach between RALOs so that those RALOs may consider, using
whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similar interest
in the additional candidate(s).
Best,
Olivier
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20181010/154d6692/attachment.html>
More information about the ALAC
mailing list