[lac-discuss-en] Final Consideration - Member of ALAC Election(Part 2)

[Webmaster]

Carlton,

My understanding of a petition is that you have a grievance. Then you have to get a certain amount of members to agree to back the petition before it becomes valid. This depends on so many factors that for a chair to make a decision that requires members to petition should be a decision of a serious nature and not one so simplistic and obvious that does not even require a decision by the Chair. The Chair is sticking his neck out and I am not going to validate executive authority where it does not exist.

ROK

From: Carlton Samuels 
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 11:49 PM
To: Webmaster 
Cc: Jacqueline Morris ; lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Final Consideration - Member of ALAC Election(Part 2)


On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Webmaster <rok at bango.org.bb> wrote:

  the Chair has a right to interpret rules carte blanche.

We do not accept our Chair as if he was the Bishop of Rome; infallible in all things.


As the presiding officer, the Chair's principal role is to interpret rules but not 'carte blanche'.  He is constrained by the RoP in the first instance.


Here's the good thing. Every other member also has an unfettered right to interpret said rules. 


And since for our purposes, the Chair is and must be a member in ordinary, every other member has the right to challenge  any and every interpretation of the Chair.


Here's the kicker.  Every member retains the absolute right to petition every other member to your point of view.  We call that a vote.


I say again, if you fell aggrieved by the declaration, then there is a remedy.  Exercise it if you must.


- CAS

   


==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2197 / Virus Database: 2437/5204 - Release Date: 08/16/12