[At-Large] Rules of procedure, draft 2

[Vittorio Bertola]

All,

attached is the revised draft for rules of procedure, incorporating what 
was agreed on today's call (and also some of Izumi's suggestions, which 
seemed non-controversial to me - mostly clarifications).

I have also incorporated the minimum participation requirements taken 
verbatim from the Self Review, even if I had to adapt them a bit - in 
particularly, it said that members are expected to participate in all 
ALS accreditation vote, but it seemed odd to me to send someone away for 
missing just one vote. So I broke down the list into "qualitative" and 
"quantitative" requirements, specified that only the quantitative ones 
count in practice, and lowered the threshold to 3/4 of ALS votes.

I am now asking for opinions on the two remaining open parts, so that 
hopefully we can reach consensus

Here they are:


==> 1.g (new section) on criteria for officers - this is what I came up 
with as a first draft:

-----
g. [Officers shall be freely chosen by the ALAC, according to the 
following criteria:

They shall be persons who are current or former members of the ALAC, or 
are anyway familiar with the activities and functioning of the ALAC;

They shall accept to serve on behalf of the ALAC by acting for the good 
of the entire Committee, working to bridge differences and build 
consensus, and, while acting in their capacity as ALAC officer, always 
putting the collective views of the Committee in front of their own.]
-----

Suggestions welcome.


==> 6.d and 11.b, majorities necessary to recall officers and amend the 
rules - as agreed, here is a recap of different proposals:

1. Initial proposal

10 votes in favour.

Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 10 must be in 
favour. If all vote, 10 must be in favour (66%).


2. Wendy's proposal

Simple majority of those who vote, quorum of 2/3.

Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 6 must be in 
favour. If all vote, 8 must be in favour.


3. Izumi's proposal

2/3 majority of those who vote, quorum of 2/3.

Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 7 must be in 
favour. If all vote, 10 must be in favour.


4. A possible compromise?

2/3 majority of those who vote, quorum 2/3, *and* simple majority of the 
committee.

Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 8 must be in 
favour. If all vote, 10 must be in favour.


My opinion => The initial proposal purposedly makes it hard to do these 
two things, because changes to fundamental rules need to be broadly 
shared, and because a recall vote in the middle of a 1-year term is 
going to be highly controversial anyway. Personally I would like to see 
these things happen only when there is almost full consensus in the 
Committee, rather than running into the risk of them happening too often 
as an ordinary tool of internal "discussion". Also, I'd be afraid of a 
system that allows a minority of the Committee to take such a decision 
under any conditions - that's why I think that #4 might be an 
interesting compromise.

Ciao,
-- 
vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
-------->  finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/  <--------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ALAC Rules of Procedure - draft 2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 55808 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070410/431b43f7/attachment.doc