[ALAC] Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure

Sat Oct 13 22:52:02 UTC 2018

As I was incorporating the suggestions into the RoP, I realized I had 
not replied to several of Seun's comments. See BLUE below.

At 10/10/2018 08:11 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 10:18 PM Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>At 08/10/2018 07:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>Hello Alan,
>>
>>Find below a few comments on the RoP and the mail guideline:
>>
>>Comments on RoP
>>11.45 - One needs to be careful with automatically considering all 
>>members present via email as it depends on the notice period provided.
>
>Agreed. As a fail-safe action, under 12.1.5, an ALAC Member can 
>request that a formal vote be taken instead of the consensus call.
>
>
>SO: Yes but this will be after the fact but its okay.
>
>>17.2.1 - Am not sure why the added statement is necessary, has 
>>there been a scenario where a candidate that had the majority 
>>wasn't declared winner?
>
>Perhaps not necessary but clarifies that this rule take precedence 
>over 17.2.4. And it doesn't hurt.
>
>
>SO: None of the 2 situations in 17.2.4 are applicable to 17.2.1 so i 
>don't think it clarifies a precedence.

If a vote results in (for instance), 9 for candidate A, and 3 each 
for candidates B and C, it does fall under 17.2.3.2 but 17.2.1 should 
take precedence. I have added the phrase "for avoidance of doubt" to 
17.2.1 to make it clear that the sentence may be redundant but is 
ensuring no doubt on the precedence (a phrase used in the ICANN Bylaws).

>>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.
>
>
>>19.11.8 - I like the inclusion but i believe the interpretation of 
>>abstain needs to be reviewed. That someone abstain should not imply 
>>a No as we currently practice. It should simply mean the person 
>>does not care hence should not be counted in the total valid votes 
>>but should be part of total cast.
>
>The current rules are very clear about what the winning condition is 
>(50% of votes cast) so I don't feel comfortable changing those 
>words. A change could certainly be possible in the future. For the 
>moment, we should focus on saying there should be an Abstain, or not 
>(once can always not vote).
>
>
>SO: Well Abstain in this case has weighting hence i don't think it 
>can only be a matter of having it or not, but if that is what you 
>like us to focus on then I prefer we do not include abstain then.

Will flag for discussion in Barcelona. Since you will not be there, 
Please send a message to me or to the ALAC list for presentation there.

>>23.1/2 - Are you suggesting we put that phrase or just doing an 
>>explanation? if the former i don't think its necessary. I think 
>>just 23.3 is sufficient.
>
>It would be bad form to have a 23.3 and no 23.1/23.2. People then do 
>not know if there is an error or not. And we have (so far) tried to 
>never renumber a section, although some day we may need to. We could 
>simply say "Omitted" but this is clearer for this revision.
>
>
>SO: Am unsure why 23.3 cannot then be renumbered to 23.1 since the 
>previous texts(23.1&2) are no longer applicable.

It could be. It is a matter of style that existing rules not be 
renumbered. Alternatively we could leave the transition rules there. 
They do not hurt anything but may be confuingi to some in the future.

>
>
>
>>24 - Similar comment as 23 hence 24.3 should be sufficient
>>
>>
>>Comments on RoP - Email guide
>>ALAC (bullet 6) - By ALT's recommendation, does it mean ALAC would 
>>consider for approval or that ALT is recommending for 
>>implementation. I think it should be decision of ALAC.
>
>My intent was to make this automatic unless the ALAC over-rode (ie 
>notification but not needing approval) to reduce the number of 
>rubber-stamp ALAC decisions. And it had been universally accepted as 
>a good thing (so far). If it needs a formal ALAC decision, it is 
>already covered under the last bullet.
>
>SO: Well am not sure about the universality but we do say ALT is not 
>a decision making group, i think doing what you suggest would not be 
>playing justice to that. Secondly this is an ALAC list, we are 
>talking about hence it seem to be appropriate that ALAC approves 
>such additions.

I have added a phrase that keeps workload down but gives ALAC full control.

>
>
>>ALAC (bullet 8,9) - Am not sure who periodic affirmation mean, can 
>>you clarify your intention? Is it just to check with the individual 
>>if they still like to remain subscribed? if yes then i think there 
>>should be a definite period for that.
>
>The theory when we wrote this was that annually we would ask. But 
>the list of such people is long and doing it annually would be a big 
>chore (and in practice we do not get around to it. Thus the 
>suggested change. It is rare that someone has asked to be taken off 
>(and they always could at any time), so the impact is minimal.
>
>
>SO: Okay actually changing from annually to periodic may give an 
>impression of much more frequent check, if an annual check is 
>cumbersome, its better this is stated to be done within every 2 years.
>
>
>>ALAC-Internal (bullet 3) - I honestly feel the ALAC list is too 
>>large and i don't think bullet point 3 should be included as i 
>>don't see the added value. At best i think only the liasons should be included
>
>This is no change from the current practice - it just uses a new 
>term not defined at the time this document was originally written 
>and moves some from the last bullet to the third. The only current 
>advisors who are not Liaisons are past ALAC Chairs.
>
>
>SO: Hmm....lets just say the current practice of growing the ALAC 
>internal list is what I was also indirectly commenting on; I feel 
>that including the entire 3.5(particularly 3.5.3 and 3.5.5) as 
>members of internal-list is un-necessary and perhaps defeats the 
>internal nature of it.

You will have to be clearer here. Are you saying that the w/3 
non-titled ALT members (3.5.3) are ALAC members and ALT members but 
should not be members of the ALAC-Internal list??

>>Line 34 - Is it referring to communication on the list or the 
>>information of the mailman itself?
>
>Communications on the list.
>
>
>SO: Okay kindly include that word communication somewhere in the sentence
>
>Cheers!
>
>Alan
>
>
>>Regards
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:46 PM Alan Greenberg 
>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca > wrote:
>>As I am about to relinquish the honor of being the Chair of the 
>>ALAC, I would like to leave things in reasonable order. There are a 
>>number of overdue changes needed to the Rules of Procedure (RoP) 
>>and associated documents.
>>To summarize, our overall rule set includes:
>>Rules of Procedure: We have a backlog of correction, clarifications 
>>and changes to address issues that have arisen or to bring the RoP 
>>in line with current practices.
>>
>>Adjunct Document 01: "Position Description for ALAC Members, 
>>Liaisons and Appointees" I expect to be considered by the ARIWG in 
>>relation to Issue 16 (Metrics)
>>Adjunct Document 02: "Metrics and Remedial Actions for ALAC Members 
>>and Appointees" was never written but to the extent it is needed, 
>>it should also be considered in relation to Issue 16.
>>Adjunct Document 03: "At-Large Board Member Selection 
>>Implementation" should not need any immediate attention. The 
>>Selection process was referenced in the Review (Issue 6) but our 
>>proposal that was accepted by the Board disagreed with the Review 
>>Team and said that we will not address it in the Review 
>>Implementation. We may of course re-open that discussion at any 
>>point in the future if changes is needed.
>>Adjunct Document 04: "At-Large Structure Framework" will no doubt 
>>be reviewed and likely changed as part of addressing Review Issue 2 
>>(ALS and Individual Membership).
>>ALAC E-mail Guide: There are a number of corrections and changes 
>>needed to being the document in line with current ALAC practice 
>>(and reduce routine work).
>>
>>
>>Accordingly I am proposing a set of changes to the ALAC Rules of 
>>Procedure and the ALAC E-mail Guide. The RoP call for at least 21 
>>calendar days notice and and this message will allow us to vote on 
>>the amendments at the Wrap-Up Session in Barcelona. There will also 
>>be time allocated for discussion in Barcelona, but hopefully any 
>>need for change can be brought up and resolved via e-mail prior to travel.
>>I will do a very brief overview of the changes on the ALAC call 
>>later today, and we can have a dedicated call if people wish.
>>Attached is the redline revision of the RoP as well as a Change Log 
>>explaining each of the changes.
>>Also attached is the redline E-mail Guide. All of the changes are 
>>either clear corrections or changes to reflect current practice 
>>(such as including the any ALT Advisor in the ALT or ALAC lists, 
>>and including key working group chairs in the ALAC list).
>>Alan
>>_______________________________________________
>>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) 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Seun Ojedeji,
>>Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>>web:     <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>>Mobile: <http://??>+2348035233535
>>alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> 
>><mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>>
>>Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
>
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Seun Ojedeji,
>Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>web:     <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>Mobile: +2348035233535
>alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> 
><mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>
>Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20181013/20f30a5c/attachment.html>