[ALAC] Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure

Thu Oct 11 21:38:16 UTC 2018

Big +1.

-Carlton

==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 4:29 PM Vanda Scartezini <vanda at scartezini.org>
wrote:

> I guess such proposals to reenter into the pool any candidate that the
> BCEC had analyzed and decided to not select, is not a good practice.
>
> If each Ralo will decide to ask to reenter their candidate, each time,
> will be an infinite process.
>
> In my view, we shall agree that once the committee is settled and agreed,
> with representation from all Ralos, we shall also agree on accept the
> committee decision or for what we need a committee?
>
>
>
> *Vanda Scartezini*
>
> *Polo Consultores Associados*
>
> *Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004*
>
> *01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil*
>
> *Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253*
>
> *Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 *
>
> *Sorry for any typos. *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *ALAC <alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton
> Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 15:18
> *To: *Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn>
> *Cc: *'ALAC List' <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <
> alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> *Subject: *Re: [ALAC] Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure
>
>
>
> I think Tijani is onto something regarding normalizing how RALOs may add a
> Board candidate to the list. However I caution against an approach that
> bakes it in the RoP a clause for a uniform procedure incumbent on all
> RALOs.
>
>
>
> This could be seen as a route to manufacture consent. And in my view, the
> process should impose administrative rules discouraging this kind of
> activity.
>
>
>
> Mute by malice or not, silence sometimes speak louder than words. Maybe my
> RALO already has a candidate and for that reason, would not engage in
> handicapping. It would be upsetting to have a long formal process to
> declare interest/no interest when it is very clear my local RALO would
> rather sit on its hands than endorse such a candidate parachuted into the
> process from another region.
>
>
>
> As to the matter of individual membership, I think all that needs to
> happen at the ALAC RoP end  is a recognition of standing for individual
> members and with it, a non-discrimination clause.
>
>
>
> -Carlton
>
>
> ==============================
> *Carlton A Samuels*
>
> *Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment &
> Turnaround*
> =============================
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:10 AM Tijani BEN JEMAA <
> tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn> 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
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *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 <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 CrÃ©pin-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
> 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)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> 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/c1fd50d2/attachment.html>