[EURO-Discuss] URGENT: Draft statement to ALAC on At Large Board Director Election Process

Wed Oct 20 12:42:17 UTC 2010

thank you olivier, thank you adam. i would like to support what you drafted. 

i think we should also mention the issue of the voting procedure of the ALAC and RALO chairs. i consider it to be crucial that there is a need for majority vote and if no candidate reached this in the first round, there should be a second vote of the three best candidates and a final vote on the two best candidates.  this procedure makes sure that we have the chance to find - on a rather consensus based procedure - a candidate who will be supported by all regions.

adam, in addition to your statement below: i think it is always helpful to make a precise proposal of procedure and timelines that should be reviewed by the At-Large Board Selection Design Team. instead of only asking them to come up with new proposals without making an own proposal.

all the best
annette

----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
Gesendet: 20.10.2010 13:31:56
An: "Discussion for At-Large Europe" <euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] URGENT: Draft statement to ALAC on At Large Board Director Election Process

>Dear Olivier,
>
>Thanks for following up on this so quickly.  Really is an important issue.
>
>As a general introduction it's important to 
>capture what I think was a strong sentiment on 
>the call, namely that after such a long and 
>exhaustive process, where all involved from the 
>At Large have tried to create the most inclusive 
>and transparent processes possible, it would be a 
>disaster to rush the end of the process and 
>create something less democratic and an outcome 
>that would be less than satisfactory.
>
>(And I've just seen Christopher's email, and 
>agree: the legitimacy of the eventually 
>"successful" candidate will clearly be contested.)
>
>I would begin the letter as follows:
>
>"Dear Colleagues,
>
>At the EURALO Conference call 19 October, the 
>issue of timing for the At Large Board Director 
>Election Process took most of the debate time. 
>In fact, it became the most important issue, 
>prompting the other issues to be re-scheduled for 
>our next EURALO Conference call.
>
>>
>>The schedule which appears to have been proposed is:
>>- 28 October 2010: Board Meeting, where the Board is expected to approve
>>the Bylaw changes, and if so:
>>- 3 November 2010: BCEC is scheduled to announce the slate of 3-7
>>candidates retained for election
>>- 3-12 November 2010 (10 days): candidates able to reach out to the At
>>Large community (campaigning)
>>- 15-19 November 2010 (5 days): Election takes place
>>
>
>With the person selected expected to be able to 
>participate in the Cartagena meeting (starting 
>for the board on Saturday December 4, or perhaps 
>earlier) and to take their place as a voting 
>Director on Friday December 10.
>
>EURALO is of the opinion that as so much effort 
>has gone into making the process of selecting the 
>At Large Director as transparent, inclusive and 
>democratic as possible, it would be a grave error 
>to risk having this good work undermined at the 
>last moment by having to rush to meet externally 
>imposed deadlines.
>
>We propose writing to the Board to inform them 
>that the lack of timely necessary changes to the 
>bylaws has caused delay to the At Large process 
>of selecting the voting Director. Given the very 
>short time remaining after the Board's 
>anticipated decision of 28 October 2010, the ALAC 
>is concerned that it cannot, in good faith, 
>select a person to this important position in 
>time to enable them to take their seat at the end 
>of the 2010 AGM."
>
>(end of new draft text.)
>
>While I think you have proposed a logical 
>process, and have squeezed in most of the 
>processes we think necessary to ensure the 
>minimum good process, I think we should also 
>consider a second option: If we were designing 
>the process without the pressure of the Cartagena 
>meeting/AGM, how many days would we recommend?  I 
>proposed we recommend that the question of 
>process and timeline for selection be given back 
>to the At-Large Board Selection Design Team to 
>make a proposal for the appropriate way forward. 
>They should be asked to suggest the best possible 
>process, and not consider any outside deadlines 
>and target dates. I think it is important we all 
>take time to consider the schedule needed to 
>produce a fair selection process, and I hope the 
>design team will be able to quickly come up with 
>a process that could take input from all the 
>RALOs.
>
>Missing from the draft: candidate petition.
>
>Candidates not on the slate offered by the BCEC 
>should have the opportunity to petition for 
>inclusion. I believe the opportunity to get back 
>on the slate was an important aspect of the white 
>paper plan.
>
>I do not think it would be appropriate for 
>candidates to be petitioning while others were 
>campaigning.  So some time must be added to the 
>schedule to allow for a possible petition 
>process. How long is the minimum for the RALOs to 
>consider and agree on petitions?
>
>Other than this, I would not recommend specifying 
>a new timeline at this stage.  As we think more 
>about all the issues involved we may find even 
>more time is required.  Let's propose a timeline 
>after discussing with other RALOs, best, let's 
>leave it to the design team to consider the 
>matter and to make recommendations.
>
>I mentioned visas as a potential problem, 
>information about visas here 
><http://www.colombia.travel/en/international-tourist/practical-information/travel-to-colombia-information-and-advice/before-coming> 
>If I understand the information correctly, that's 
>not so many countries with a visa waiver (33?)
>
>I am uncomfortable about suggesting the person 
>might join the Board meeting via some form of 
>remote access.  Being able to join the other 
>Directors for the week of meetings, and also 
>receive briefings before the meeting, is 
>important.  Otherwise they will be at a 
>disadvantage as soon as they join.
>
>I think this will be an unpopular proposal, but I 
>suggest we recommend to the Board that the person 
>be accepted as a "member in waiting" until six 
>months after the AGM when the begin their normal 
>term.  For that six month period they join the 
>Board along side the existing ALAC liaison as a 
>non-voting member, acting with the same 
>privileges and restrictions as the current board 
>liaisons.
>
>More comments inline below:
>
>
>>Dear all,
>>
>>at the EURALO Conference call today, the issue 
>>of timings for the At Large Board Director 
>>Election Process took most of the debate time.
>>In fact, it became the most important issue, 
>>prompting the other issues to be re-scheduled 
>>for our next EURALO Conference call.
>>
>>One immediate and urgent action item was to 
>>write a letter to the ALAC Chair and to the 
>>ALAC, asking for more time to be given to the 
>>election process. Wolf Ludwig and I wrote this 
>>together after the conference call.
>>The draft letter's contents explain the matter in further detail.
>>
>>Please be so kind to take the time to read the proposed statement/letter.
>>What the EURALO Board needs today is your 
>>feedback by tonight, ie. Wednesday 20 October 
>>2010, 20:00 CEST, in order to be able to send 
>>this by Thursday.
>>We realise that the time for comments is really 
>>short, but this is required as the clock is 
>>ticking and we have to ask for more time as soon 
>>as possible.
>>
>>Many thanks for your understanding in this 
>>crucial but exciting time for At Large.
>>
>>Kindest regards,
>>
>>Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
>>EURALO Secretariat
>>
>>--- start of draft statement ---
>>
>>EURALO request to ALAC on At Large Board Director Election Process
>>20/10/2010
>>
>>We are writing to you with regards to the proposed schedule for the
>>election of the At Large Selected Board Position.
>>
>>The schedule which appears to have been proposed is:
>>- 28 October 2010: Board Meeting, where the Board is expected to approve
>>the Bylaw changes, and if so:
>>- 3 November 2010: BCEC is scheduled to announce the slate of 3-7
>>candidates retained for election
>>- 3-12 November 2010 (10 days): candidates able to reach out to the At
>>Large community (campaigning)
>>- 15-19 November 2010 (5 days): Election takes place
>>
>>It is understood that the period 12-15 November (4 days) might be used
>>for any RALO election process. If added to the 5 days scheduled for the
>>election, this provides a total of 10 days for voting - assuming voting
>>can be considered legitimate when candidates have barely had a chance to
>>present themselves.
>
>
>Missing from the timeline is the opportunity for 
>candidates not on the BCEC slate to petition to 
>be placed on the slate.  Hearing and judging 
>petitions is a process that will involve all 
>RALOs.  Suggest 10 days (though it should, I 
>think, be left to the design team.)
>
>Overall I am uncomfortable with suggesting what 
>is the bare minimum to make the process work. 
>After all this effort we should be looking to 
>maximize the process.  We need to get this right. 
>It's about legitimacy of process and the 
>selection.
>
>
>>We refer you to the At Large January 2010 White Paper Recommendation 4:
>>
>>"The Board seat should be selected by the ALAC plus the RALO Chairs. The
>>RALO-appointed ALAC members and the RALO Chairs may be directed by
>>their ALSes if the RALO desires (and in accordance with their RoP).
>>This methodology gives ALSes large control over who is selected,
>>without the complexity of two-level vote weighting and centralized ALS
>>elector verification. The vote should be by secret ballot."
>>
>>In the interest of empowerment of our ALSes, it is the desire of the
>>EURALO Board to conduct a vote of our ALSes directing the EURALO Chair
>>on his vote.
>
>
>The opinions of the ALS will also inform the ALAC 
>members, both those selected by the RALO and the 
>NomCom appointee.  Worth checking if some RALO's 
>rules of procedure require a directed vote.
>
>
>>Whilst no mimimum vote timing is defined in the EURALO Rules of
>>Procedures, clause 11.18.1 of the EURALO by-laws states that a
>>sufficient amount of time is required for all members to record a vote
>>on any matter. It is therefore good practice to provide at least 10 days
>>of voting time for our ALSes. This appears to be clearly incompatible
>>with the currently proposed ALAC schedule of only 4 days' voting time.
>>
>>Whilst we understand that the proposed schedule takes into account a
>>number of constraints in order to allow the At Large elected Director to
>>take their seat on the last day of the Cartagena Meeting on Friday, 10
>>December 2010, we consider it unwise to hurry the process at the
>>possible expense of a legitimate vote. ALSes need to be informed in
>>time. Campaigning needs to be given enough time for Question/Answer
>>sessions. Volunteers in ALSes need to find the time to make a sound
>>decision for what is arguably one of At Large's most important decisions
>>of recent years.
>>
>>We therefore suggest the following course of action:
>>
>>* the voting process be given more time, beyond the 15-19 November period.
>>An extension of the Election until 30th November 2010 would provide more
>>time for ALSes to cast their vote. Indeed, we believe that it would
>>provide greater legitimacy to the process, thanks to a truly bottom-up
>>empowerment. It will allow for voting time to fall closer in line with
>>other ICANN processes requiring public input. We emphasize this further
>>than standard procedure: it is a matter of credibility to our members
>>and to the At Large community.
>
>
>I would delete the above paragraph and say:
>
>We recommend that the At-Large Board Selection 
>Design Team is asked to quickly make a proposal 
>for the appropriate way forward and to present a 
>timeline for the selection process.  We recognize 
>that time is short and the design team may not 
>have time to consult in depth with the RALOs, but 
>should ask the respective RALO officers to reply 
>to their respective members of the design team by 
>end of Monday October 25 so there is time to 
>inform the Board before their meeting on October 
>28.
>
>
>
>>* ICANN should be informed that an At Large Elected Director taking its
>>seat on the Board after the end of the Cartagena meeting might not be
>>able to make it to the meeting in person due to VISA issues, and
>>provisions should therefore be made for that person to participate
>>remotely, by Webcam or other appropriate means.
>
>
>I would delete the above paragraph and say:
>
>The Board will be informed of the problem the 
>ALAC and RALOs are facing given the delay to the 
>changes in the bylaws, and that the ALAC does not 
>expect to be able to provide the name to the the 
>selected At Large Director in time for them to be 
>seated at the end of the AGM in Cartagena.
>
>(my solution, expect unpopular)
>
>ALAC will ask the Board to amend the by laws so 
>that the person, when selected, will be able to 
>join the Board along side the existing ALAC 
>liaison as an additional non-voting member, 
>acting with the same privileges and restrictions 
>as the current board liaisons. The person will 
>then take their voting seat six months after the 
>AGM and commence their three-year term.  At that 
>time, the current ALAC liaison will step down.
>
>[I am irritated we did not even try to keep the 
>liaison position... but that's another 
>discussion.]
>
>
>
>>* A clear and concise explanation of the voting process and schedule
>>should be published as soon as possible, with an explanation of the
>>procedure for a RALO petition (if required) including a flow chart to
>>help ALSes understand how the process will take place. A further
>>explanation of the multiple round voting should be detailed, bearing in
>>mind the possibility of RALOs needing to call upon their membership
>>between each election round. Should ALS balloting by RALOs not be
>>possible for each voting round, this should be explained as soon as
>>possible in order for RALOs to devise alternative voting strategies at
>>short notice (weighted voting being one possible solution)
>
>
>Not comments about letting the design team lead.
>
>
>>Thank you for your consideration on this very important subject. Getting
>>this process right is of particular importance since it has a direct
>>impact on the legitimacy of At Large and the At Large elected Board
>>Director. Whilst we do not dispute the fact that it is important that an
>>At Large elected Board Director takes their seat in Cartagena, we would
>>like the process itself to be as equitable, transparent and credible to
>>our stakeholders.
>>
>>--- end of draft statement ---
>>
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Adam
>
>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>EURO-Discuss mailing list
>>EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
>>
>>Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>EURO-Discuss mailing list
>EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
>
>Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org