[ALAC] Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Oct 11 15:14:23 UTC 2018


At 11/10/2018 08:09 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
>Alan and all,
>
>I went through the RoP review proposed by Alan, 
>and I accept most of them except 2:
>
>19.9.1: I find the language confusing. I propose the following in stead:
>Following the publication of the BCEC slate of 
>candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest 
>adding candidates to that list if a RALO 
>believes that the BCEC erred in omitting a 
>candidate. The timetable should allow for 
>consultations and outreach both within each RALO 
>and Between all RALOs so that the other RALOs 
>may consider, using whatever methodology they 
>choose, whether they have a similarly compelling 
>interest in the additional candidate.
>This is for clarity

I will reword the section in light of all of the comments that have been made.

>Also, I have a concern about each RALO using 
>whatever methodology they choose to decide 
>whether they have interest in the additional 
>candidate. We have today an experience of 3 
>selections (2010, 2014, 2017) and I chaired the 
>BMSPC for 2 of them. I recommend that all 
>actions related to the Board member selection by 
>At-Large be done trough a common set of rules 
>for all the RALOs including those related to the 
>petition. This is because we need the whole RALO 
>members decide whether they have interest in the 
>additional candidate, not the RALO Chair nor its 
>leadership team. This rules must be very well 
>detailed so that there is no room for interpretation.

The decision that the ALAC RoP require RALOs to 
follow specific processes is well beyond a set of 
changes that are clean-up and clarification. We 
currently have no such rules and imposing them 
would need to be a well-debated community decision.


>19.11.8: I don’t know why no abstain option 
>should be for the very first round of vote. 
>Suppose there are 5 candidates and I don’t 
>believe that any of them can be a good for this 
>position. How shall I do? If I accept the 
>proposal of Alan, I should either not vote or 
>vote for someone who I believe is not a good one.

The reason is that a Single Transferable Vote 
(STV) asked that the elector order all of the 
candidates (ie says who they prefer 1st, 2nd, 
3rd, etc). There is way to include an abstain 
option because if it is there, it will be treated 
as a nth candidate. If we were building out own 
voting system, we could have an over-riding 
abstain that says you will not order any of the 
candidates, but that option is not part of 
BigPulse (or any voting system I am aware of). So 
a decision not to vote is the only option I can see in this case.


>By the way, I had a long discussion with Alan 
>about including the 2017 BMSPC recommendations 
>in the RoP, and Alan think that such 
>modifications of the RoP need more discussion to 
>be accepted by the At-Large members and then 
>included in the RoP. I accepted his opinion and 
>look forward to this discussion and the related 
>RoP modifications before we start the next board 
>member selection process in 2020.

Thanks Tijani. There are no doubt parts of our 
RoP that some feel should be revised and if the 
ALAC decides that this is a productive use of its 
communal time, then such a discussion should be 
held. I do question whether the need for some 
changes is compelling enough to warrant it being 
high on the ALAC priority list, but that is a decision for the next ALAC.

Alan


>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Tijani BEN JEMAA
>Executive Director
>Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
>Phone: +216 98 330 114
>           +216 52 385 114
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Le 11 oct. 2018 à 00:42, Alan Greenberg 
>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> a écrit :
>>
>>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
>>_______________________________________________
>>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
>>ALAC Working Wiki: 
>>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20181011/c85c7c7d/attachment.html>


More information about the ALAC mailing list