[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