<html>
<body>
As I was incorporating the suggestions into the RoP, I realized I had not
replied to several of Seun's comments. See
<font color="#0000FF">BLUE</font> below.<br><br>
At 10/10/2018 08:11 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 10:18 PM
Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>At 08/10/2018 07:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Hello Alan,<br><br>
<dd>Find below a few comments on the RoP and the mail guideline:<br><br>
<dd>Comments on RoP</b><br>
<dd>11.45 - One needs to be careful with automatically considering all
members present via email as it depends on the notice period
provided.</blockquote><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
</dl><br>
SO: Yes but this will be after the fact but its okay. <br>
<dl><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>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?</blockquote><br>
<dd>Perhaps not necessary but clarifies that this rule take precedence
over 17.2.4. And it doesn't hurt.<br><br>
</dl><br>
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.</blockquote><br>
<font color="#0000FF">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).<br><br>
<br>
</font><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><br>
<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>
</dl><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. <br>
<dl><br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>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.</blockquote><br>
<dd>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).<br><br>
</dl><br>
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.</blockquote><br>
<font color="#0000FF">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.<br><br>
<br><br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dl>
<dd>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.</blockquote><br>
<dd>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. <br><br>
</dl><br>
SO: Am unsure why 23.3 cannot then be renumbered to 23.1 since the
previous texts(23.1&2) are no longer applicable. </blockquote><br>
<font color="#0000FF">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.<br><br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <br>
<dl><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>24 - Similar comment as 23 hence 24.3 should be sufficient<br><br>
<br>
<dd>Comments on RoP - Email guide</b><br>
<dd>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.</blockquote><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
</dl>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.</blockquote><br>
<font color="#0000FF">I have added a phrase that keeps workload down but
gives ALAC full control.<br><br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <br>
<dl><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>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.</blockquote><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
</dl><br>
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. <br>
<dl><br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>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</blockquote><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
</dl><br>
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. </blockquote><br>
<font color="#0000FF">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??<br><br>
<br><br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dl>
<dd>Line 34 - Is it referring to communication on the list or the
information of the mailman itself?</blockquote><br>
<dd>Communications on the list.<br><br>
</dl><br>
SO: Okay kindly include that word communication somewhere in the
sentence<br><br>
Cheers!<br>
<dl><br>
<dd>Alan<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Regards<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
<dd>On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:46 PM Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:
<dl>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>To summarize, our overall rule set includes:<br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<dd>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)<br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>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).<br>
<dd>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).<br>
<br>
<br>
<dd>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. <br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>Attached is the redline revision of the RoP as well as a Change Log
explaining each of the changes.<br>
<dd>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).<br>
<dd>Alan<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________
<dd>ALAC mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<dd>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br>
<dd>At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<dd>ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>
<br><br>
</dl><br><br>
<dd>-- <br>
<dd>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<dl>
<dd><font color="#888888">Seun Ojedeji,
<dd>Federal University Oye-Ekiti
<dd>web:
<a href="http://www.fuoye.edu.ng">http://www.fuoye.edu.ng</a>
<dd>Mobile: <a href="http://??">+2348035233535</a>
<dd>alt email:<a href="http://goog_1872880453">
</a><a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng">
seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng</a><br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your
action!</font></blockquote>
</dl>
</dl>
</dl><br><br>
-- <br>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<dl>
<dd><font color="#888888">Seun Ojedeji,<br>
<dd>Federal University Oye-Ekiti<br>
<dd>web:
<a href="http://www.fuoye.edu.ng">http://www.fuoye.edu.ng</a><br>
<dd>Mobile: <a href="??">+2348035233535</a><br>
<dd>alt email:<a href="http://goog_1872880453">
</a><a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng">
seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng</a></i><br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your
action!<br>
</font><br>
</dl>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>