<html>
<body>
I agree. No need to be specific as to who would take on the role. Each
AC/SO has full ability to make its own selection.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 20/05/2016 02:17 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I tend to agree that once
selected/elected to seat at board and being at the time to be observer –
(some time before general assembbly), I believe person shall be free from
other positions and a replaced process shall be in place. Meantime one
vice chair could respond for the AC/SO position till new
selection/election process to fill this position is finished. <br>
Best, <br>
<b><i>Vanda Scartezini<br>
Polo Consultores Associados<br>
Av. Paulista 1159 # 1004<br>
01311-200 – Sao Paulo/SP – Brazil<br>
Phone: + 55 11 3266-6253<br>
Mobile: + 55 11 98181-1464<br>
</i></b> <br>
<b>From: </b><alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of
Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Friday, May 20, 2016 at 2:58 AM<br>
<b>To: </b>Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca><br>
<b>Cc: </b>ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [ALAC] CONSENSUS CALL: My comments on Draft
Bylaws<br>
<br><br>
Sent from my LG G4<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
On 19 May 2016 18:13, "Alan Greenberg"
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
><br>
> At 19/05/2016 12:23 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br>
><br>
>> As proposed in the CCWG proposal, the Chair's of SO/AC would
represent the EC.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Or it could be someone else if the AC/SO chose.<br>
><br><br>
SO: Yes that's right.<br><br>
><br>
>> In the case of AtLarge that will be the ALAC Chair. At the
moment noting prevents an ALAC Chair from being nominated as a board
member just that he/she will need to resign his/her Chair position if he
happens to make it to the board. In that case, there will be no room for
concurrent occupant of the EC and of the board(either liaison or
voting).<br>
><br>
><br>
> He/she would clearly have to resign the EC position immediately.
<br>
><br>
SO: Hmm... By immediately, do you mean after occupying the board seat? Or
Prior to nomination? If the latter then it may not be inline with what I
understand to be the intent your write-up<br><br>
><br>
Whether would have to resign the Chair position prior to actually being
seated is an interesting question.<br>
><br>
SO: Well I think there is some logic and time factor here; in the case of
AtLarge elected board member, once the AtLarge(ALAC) completes her
selection process, I would expect that such person would resign his/her
ALAC/AtLarge position (either chair or not) and same should be the case
if it was a nomcom position seat as well. Now I am focusing on AtLarge
here as I believe each SO/AC should have independence in setting their
process and we should not restrict them at the bylaw level expect
ensuring that one person does not occupy EC and Board
simultaneously.<br><br>
> <br><br>
Since the Board tend to allow incoming Directors to be observers,
resignation would probably be required immediate, but perhaps there would
be reasons to stay temporarily as Chair and NOT be an observer on the
Board.<br>
><br><br>
SO: Yeah resignation is required as per section 5.4.2 of the current
bylaw, i think its an ideal thing to do and i don't see any possible
reason why someone elected/selected to be on the board would want to
still maintain previous positions in anyway. There will always be people
to fill such a seat (ofcourse may not be as good as the out-gone but Rome
is not built in a day)<br><br>
><br>
><br>
>> My question then would be to know if we currently identified
conflict of interest(and such disallow) in our current board member
selection/nomination process where a sitting Chair cannot be nominated?
If that exist then I will have to differ on my previous stand and agree
with Tijani.<br>
><br>
><br>
> There are NO general restrictions about who can apply for a Board
position other than they cannot currently be on the NomCom. An AC/SO
might have local rules. There are none for the ALAC that relate to this,
other than Board applicants cannot sit on the two selection committees we
have.<br>
><br><br>
SO: Yeah thats my thought as well. So it means my initial support still
stand.<br><br>
> Such a rule has never been suggested that I am aware of. And given
the example with several sitting (non-At-Large) Board members, I would
not want such a rule.<br>
><br><br>
SO: There are some merits/demerits of having such rule and we can always
discuss that latter, but if we must then it would be at AtLarge level as
we don't have to lockin(restrict) the bylaw that much. <br><br>
Regards<br><br>
> Alan<br>
><br>
>> Otherwise I think the fix should be at our board selection
process instead; by requiring that sitting Chair cannot be nominated for
board talkless of being elected.<br>
>><br>
>> Regards<br>
>><br>
>> Sent from my LG G4<br>
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br>
>> On 19 May 2016 16:56, "Tijani BEN JEMAA"
<<a href="mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn">
tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Alan,<br>
>> I support your comment on<br>
>> Section 4.6(e)(v) but not 7.4(d) because I don̢۪t find it a pr
problem to restrict to someone who is serving on the EC administration to
be simultaneously on the board or to be candidate to such position. I
even find it a kind of avoiding the concentration of power in the hands
of a single person.<br>
>><br>
>> So please record my full support to your comments on section
4.6(e)(v) and my opposition to those about section 7.4(d).<br>
>> <br>
>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>> Tijani BEN JEMAA<br>
>> Executive Director<br>
>> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)<br>
>> Phone:<a href="tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114"> +216 98 330
114</a><br>
>>
<a href="tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114"> +216 52 385 114</a><br>
>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> Le 19 mai 2016 Ã 14:56, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> a écrit :<br>
>>> Most of the comments I made (sent to the CCWG list and
IANA-Issues lists) have either been completely integrated into the CCWG
comments or are not particularly important. There are two that I feel
still have merit. I have reviewed them with the ALT, and I have their
full support (including Cheryl and Leon who have been very involved in
the current draft Bylaws as well as the more recent comments of the CCWG
itself on the draft Bylaws. I am not making these comments without
considerable thought. IN BOTH CASES, IF THE CURRENT DRAFT BYLAWS ARE
IMPLEMENTED, I BELIEVE THAT ICANN WILL BE FOLLOWING A PATH THAT WILL
NEGATIVELY IMPACT ALL OF US.<br>
>>> I will be submitting these comments to the Public Comment on
my own behalf, but I would like to be able to say that they are supported
by the ALAC prior to the close of the comment oat 23:59 on Saturday. I
would appreciate explicit statements of support, but in the absence of
significant opposition, I will say that the comments are those of the
ALAC.<br>
>>> Alan<br>
>>> PS I will not be submitting the comment until later today.
If you notice any typos, please let me know ASAP.<br>
>>> =============================<br>
>>> Background:<br>
>>> The Affirmation of Commitment (AoC) Reviews are now being
integrated into the Bylaws. The AoC called for the reviews to be held
every three years, but was unclear as to when the three years was
measured from. The three years has been interpreted flexibly to allow
more time between some reviews and the Board has deferred some reviews
due to community overload (with the agreement of the NTIA, the AoC
co-signer). The CCWG required the new reviews to be carried out no less
frequently than every five years, measured from the start of one review
until the start of the next one. It was recently realized that the last
WHOIS review started in October 2010, so when the new Bylaws are adopted,
we will already be several months past the October 2015 date for the next
one to start and will need to initiate the next one immediately. <br>
>>> Since the required review is an Registration Directory
Services Review, renamed from WHOIS Review, we would technically NOT be
in default, since there never has been an "RDS Review". But it
is assumed that this distinction will not affect ICANN's actions.<br>
>>> Section 4.6(e)(v)<br>
>>> During the CCWG discussions on the interval between the
reviews, the issue of ICANN immediately being in default on the WHOIS/RDS
review was never raised. Moreover, since those discussions were held, the
GNSO new RDS PDPWG has been convened and is well underway. It is
reasonably clear that the people in the volunteer community who would
likely participate in an RDS review significantly overlap with those who
are heavily involved in the RDS PDP. To schedule an RDS Review soon after
the Bylaws are enacted would be serious error and will only serve to slow
the work of the PDP - a PDP that even now may go on for quite some
time.<br>
>>><br>
>>> It is clear that there is work that needs to be done that
would fall under the auspices of a full blown PDP. We need a good picture
of how the various current WHOIS/RDS efforts mesh together. We need to
assess how the recommendations of the first WHOIS review are being
implemented and their impact, as well as other WHOIS/RDS related
activities unrelated to that last AoC review.<br>
>>> But these efforts, as important as they are, do not need to
be done by a full-blown AoC-like review. Most of the work can be done by
staff. To the extent that "staff cannot be trusted" (something
that I question, but will address), I am others in the community will
gladly act as a sounding block and review their work. [For the record, I
was the person on the ATRT2 who did the full analysis of the WHOIS RT
Recommendation implementation, so I have some idea of what I am talking
about.]<br>
>>> The current Bylaws for the organizational reviews all have
explicit time limits in them, but also have the words "if
feasible". That was true even when the organization review interval
was (foolishly) three years instead of the five years it was quickly
changed to. "If feasible" allowed the Board to save an immense
amount of wasted community expense and ICANN dollars. We need some
wriggle room in the current case as well.<br>
>>> I strongly suggest that the draft Bylaws be revised to allow
additional flexibility to defer the RDS review until there is a real RDS
to review, and would even suggest that once implemented, they soon after
be amended to add the missing "if feasible".<br>
>>><br>
>>> =============================<br>
>>> Background:<br>
>>> The CCWG Proposal requires the Empowered Community (EC) to
take a variety of actions but was not specific on exactly how this would
happen or what people would take responsibility for ensuring that the
actions are carried out. As a result this had to be addressed during
Bylaw drafting. The concept of the EC Administration was created,
embodied by the Chairs (or other delegates) of the AC/SOs participating
in the EC.<br>
>>> Along with the creation (or perhaps identification, since
there was always a need for such a body/group) of the EC Administration,
a section was added to the draft Bylaws placing restrictions on the
people involved in the EC Administration.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Section 7.4(d)<br>
>>> "No person who serves on the EC Administration while
serving in that capacity shall be considered for nomination or designated
to the Board, nor serve simultaneously on the EC Administration and as a
Director or Liaison to the Board."<br>
>>> Lawyers Comments (in reply to my early raising of this
issue):<br>
>>> On March 31, 2016, counsel posed the following question to
the Bylaws Coordination Group and received confirmation that the
disqualification in Section 7.4(d) be included in the Bylaws:
"Confirm that chairs of the Decisional Participants and persons
designated by the Decisional Participants to serve on the EC Chairs
Council cannot be nominated or serve on the ICANN Board. Such a provision
would be consistent with other provisions in the current Byl<br>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a> At-Large
Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a> ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC" eudora="autourl">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC</a>
)</blockquote></body>
</html>