[ALAC] Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure

[Alan Greenberg]

Olivier,

To be clear, you made several changes from the 
proposed text, some you highlighted in red and 
others were just slipped in. Can you confirm if all were intentional?

a) replace "each RALO" with "RALOs"  (not noted in red)
b) replaced "erred" with "did not make a good decsision"
c) removed the word "compelling"  (not noted in red)
c) added (s) to match the plural case earlier in the sentence.

a) the "each" was added to make it clear that 
each RALO needed to make an independent decision. 
But I agree it is awkward wording since it flips 
between talking about a single RALO and all RALOs. That needs fixing.
b) I don't really see the difference between the 
two, but don't care much either
c) again the reason that this paragraph was being 
adjust was to convey just this part. That the 
RALO feels STRONGLY that the candidate must be 
added back, not just is willing to live with it.
d) good catch.

Alan

At 10/10/2018 12:34 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond 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 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/20181010/3786abb1/attachment.html>