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

Wed Oct 20 18:14:07 UTC 2010

Wolf, hi.

The only way I can think to make comments is to copy the text to Word
and use track changes.  It's also 3am where I am, not sure I've
captured 100% what I wanted to say (or if I've even been accurate!)

word and pdf attached.

Thanks,

Adam

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Wolf Ludwig
<wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net> wrote:
> Dear Annette, Adam, Christopher and all,
>
> thanks for your comments and inputs! We are trying to incorporate
> your suggestions into the draft what was easy with the comments
> from Annette, Christopher or Jacqueline (LACRALO) but rather difficult
> with the divers suggestions from Adam. To me at least, it was not easy
> to sort out your comments and concrete text proposals, Adam!
>
> To avoid that Olivier spends another night on the final draft, may I
> ask you, Adam, to forward precise text suggestions and let us know
> where they fit in?
>
> Thanks and kind regards,
> Wolf
>
>
>  Adam Peake wrote Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:31:
>>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
>>
>
> comunica-ch
> phone +41 79 204 83 87
> Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
> www.comunica-ch.net
>
> Digitale Allmend
> http://blog.allmend.ch -
>
> EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
> http://euralo.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: AJP-comments-OCLdraft.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 45568 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss/attachments/20101021/e017ad81/attachment-0001.doc 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: AJP-comments-OCLdraft.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 31521 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss/attachments/20101021/e017ad81/attachment-0001.pdf 