[ALAC] Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure

[Seun Ojedeji]

Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, 17:34 Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, <ocl at gih.com> wrote:

> 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
>

SO: Cool, didn't see that part. Thanks.

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/d36b3b8d/attachment.html>