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

Thu Oct 21 08:53:15 UTC 2010

Hi

FWIW unless I'm missing something, Adam's suggestions seem sensible.

Best,

Bill

On Oct 20, 2010, at 8:14 PM, Adam Peake wrote:

> 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
>> 
> <AJP-comments-OCLdraft.doc><AJP-comments-OCLdraft.pdf>_______________________________________________
> 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

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************************