<html>
<body>
At 11/10/2018 08:09 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font color="#002E7A">Alan and
all,</font><br>
<font color="#002E7A"><br>
I went through the RoP review proposed by Alan, and I accept most of them
except 2:<br><br>
19.9.1: I find the language confusing. I propose the following in
stead:<br>
</font>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
<font color="#0056D6">each RALO </font>and
<font color="#0061FF">Between</font> <font color="#0056D6">all</font>
RALOs so that the other RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology
they choose, whether they have a similarly compelling interest in the
additional candidate. <br>
<font color="#002E7A">This is for clarity</font></blockquote><br>
I will reword the section in light of all of the comments that have been
made.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><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>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.</blockquote><br>
The decision that the ALAC RoP require RALOs to follow specific processes
is well beyond a set of changes that are clean-up and clarification. We
currently have no such rules and imposing them would need to be a
well-debated community decision.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><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></blockquote><br>
The reason is that a Single Transferable Vote (STV) asked that the
elector order all of the candidates (ie says who they prefer 1st, 2nd,
3rd, etc). There is way to include an abstain option because if it is
there, it will be treated as a nth candidate. If we were building out own
voting system, we could have an over-riding abstain that says you will
not order any of the candidates, but that option is not part of BigPulse
(or any voting system I am aware of). So a decision not to vote is the
only option I can see in this case.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><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></blockquote><br>
Thanks Tijani. There are no doubt parts of our RoP that some feel should
be revised and if the ALAC decides that this is a productive use of its
communal time, then such a discussion should be held. I do question
whether the need for some changes is compelling enough to warrant it
being high on the ALAC priority list, but that is a decision for the next
ALAC.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<b>Tijani BEN JEMAA<br>
</b>Executive Director<br>
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (<b>FMAI</b>)<br>
Phone: +216 98 330 114<br>
+216 52 385 114<br>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Le 11 oct. 2018 à 00:42, Alan
Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> a écrit :<br><br>
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=cite cite="">Dear Seun, Alan,<br><br>
On 10/10/2018 14:11, Seun Ojedeji
wrote:<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<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)</blockquote>
</dl>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.
</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>_______________________________________________<br>
ALAC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br><br>
At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a><br>
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></blockquote></body>
</html>