<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large">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. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large">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. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large">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.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large">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.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large">-Carlton</div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br>==============================<br><i><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif">Carlton A Samuels</font></i><br><font face="comic sans ms, sans-serif"><i>Mobile: 876-818-1799<br><font color="#33CC00">Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround</font></i></font><br>=============================</div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:10 AM Tijani BEN JEMAA <<a href="mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn">tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><font color="#002e7a">Alan and all,</font><div><font color="#002e7a"><br></font></div><div><font color="#002e7a">I went through the RoP review proposed by Alan, and I accept most of them except 2:</font></div><div><font color="#002e7a"><br></font></div><div><font color="#002e7a">19.9.1: I find the language confusing. I propose the following in stead:</font></div><div>
Following the
publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to
suggest adding candidates to that list <span style="color:rgb(251,0,8)">if </span><span style="color:rgb(65,0,255)">a</span><span style="color:rgb(251,0,8)"> RALO believes that
the BCEC erred in omitting a candidate</span>. The timetable should allow for
consultations <span style="color:rgb(251,0,8)">and outreach both within </span><font color="#0056d6">each RALO </font><span style="color:rgb(251,0,8)">and </span><font color="#0061ff">Between</font><span style="color:rgb(251,0,8)"> </span><font color="#0056d6">all</font><span style="color:rgb(251,0,8)"> RALOs so that </span><span style="color:rgb(65,0,255)">the other</span><span style="color:rgb(251,0,8)"> RALOs may
consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similarly
compelling interest in the additional candidate.</span> </div><div><font color="#002e7a">This is for clarity</font></div><div><font color="#002e7a">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 </font><span style="color:rgb(0,46,122)">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.</span></div><div><font color="#002e7a"><br></font></div><div><font color="#002e7a">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.</font></div><div><font color="#002e7a"><br></font></div><div><font color="#002e7a">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. </font></div><div><font color="#002e7a"><br></font></div><div><div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><div style="text-align:start;text-indent:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><div style="text-align:start;text-indent:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><div style="text-align:start;text-indent:0px;word-wrap:break-word"><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="color:rgb(54,95,145)">-----------------------------------------------------------------------------</span></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><b><span style="color:rgb(54,95,145)">Tijani BEN JEMAA</span></b></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="color:rgb(54,95,145)">Executive Director</span></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="color:rgb(54,95,145)">Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (</span><b style="color:rgb(54,95,145)">FMAI</b><span style="color:rgb(54,95,145)">)</span></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="color:rgb(54,95,145)">Phone: +216 98 330 114</span></div><div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);letter-spacing:normal;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px"><span style="color:rgb(54,95,145)"> </span> <span style="color:rgb(54,95,145)">+216 52 385 114</span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(54,95,145)">-----------------------------------------------------------------------------</span></div><br><br><br><br><br><br></div></div></div></div></div>
</div>
<br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Le 11 oct. 2018 à 00:42, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca" target="_blank">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> a écrit :</div><br class="m_-7264299924272233049Apple-interchange-newline"><div>
<div>
Olivier,<br><br>
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?<br><br>
a) replace "each RALO" with "RALOs" (not noted
in red)<br>
b) replaced "erred" with "did not make a good
decsision"<br>
c) removed the word "compelling" (not noted in red)<br>
c) added (s) to match the plural case earlier in the sentence.<br><br>
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.<br>
b) I don't really see the difference between the two, but don't care much
either<br>
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.<br>
d) good catch.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 10/10/2018 12:34 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" class="m_-7264299924272233049cite">Dear Seun, Alan,<br><br>
On 10/10/2018 14:11, Seun Ojedeji
wrote:<blockquote type="cite" class="m_-7264299924272233049cite">
<blockquote type="cite" class="m_-7264299924272233049cite">
<dl>
<dd>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)</dd></dl></blockquote>
<dl><dd>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? <br><br>
<br>
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.
</dd></dl></blockquote><br>
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.<br>
May I suggest:<br>
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 <font color="#FF0000">did not make a good decision
</font>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<font color="#FF0000">(s)</font>.<br><br>
Best,<br><br>
Olivier</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>ALAC mailing list<br><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br><a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br><br>At-Large Online: <a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org" target="_blank">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a><br>ALAC Working Wiki: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
ALAC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org" target="_blank">ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br>
<br>
At-Large Online: <a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a><br>
ALAC Working Wiki: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a></blockquote></div>