[ALAC] Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure

Thu Oct 11 23:51:01 UTC 2018

Agree ++1

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 5:39 AM Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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)
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181012/f862a931/attachment.html>