[ALAC] Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Oct 11 22:39:51 UTC 2018


I would support not having this petition process 
but that is what the community decided and it stands until it is changed.

If there is a will within the ALAC to change it, it is a simple RoP edit!  ;-)

That said, it is not an infinite process since if 
a RALO supports their own candidate and no other 
RALO supports that candidate, it does not succeed.

Alan

At 11/10/2018 05:29 PM, Vanda Scartezini 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 
><<mailto:tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org.tn>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 Ã  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>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>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/fb540fb0/attachment.html>


More information about the ALAC mailing list