[ALAC] Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure

Javier Rua javrua at gmail.com
Fri Oct 12 03:23:08 UTC 2018


Agree!

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:51 PM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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 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
>>> 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)
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181011/64357a33/attachment.html>


More information about the ALAC mailing list