- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Minority statement for the IGO-INGO identifier protection PDP Final Report
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 16, 2013

Nov. 16, 2013

And a newer version correcting two grammar problems (thanks to Evan for catching them). Alan At 14/11/2013 01:29 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >I have replaced the sentence in question with: > >>The collection of Recommendations with Consensus level or Strong >>support, taken as a whole, do not form a cohesive and consistent >>set of policies. Although each individual Recommendation received >>sufficient support, the net result is a set of Recommendations may >>be incomplete and perhaps even conflicting. > >and a footnote: > >>As an example, there may be cases where a strong protection is not >>recommended, but the recommendations may be silent on weaker forms >>of protection. > > >aLAN > > > >At 13/11/2013 09:38 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>Since these are modifications for clarity, I'll suggest one more. >>One bothered me and I now have a better idea how to express what it was. >> >>"If the Recommendations with Consensus level or Strong support were >>implemented, there is no assurance that they form a cohesive and >>consistent set of policies." >> >>I recall this statement being questioned by members of the working >>group, for it is difficult to parse. What I believe it intended is >>that the selection of resolutions that achieved Consensus are not >>together reflective of a single approach to the issue, and in some >>cases the statements that apparently have Consensus even seem to >>contradict each other. >> >>In light of this, I suggest this re-working of the line that is >>clearer and more direct to the point. >> >>"The collection of Recommendations with Consensus level or Strong >>support, taken as a whole, do not form a cohesive and consistent >>set of policies" >> >> >> >>Thanks, >> >>- Evan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Minority statement for the IGO-INGO identifier protection PDP Final Report
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 14, 2013

Nov. 14, 2013

I have replaced the sentence in question with: >The collection of Recommendations with Consensus level or Strong >support, taken as a whole, do not form a cohesive and consistent set >of policies. Although each individual Recommendation received >sufficient support, the net result is a set of Recommendations may >be incomplete and perhaps even conflicting. and a footnote: >As an example, there may be cases where a strong protection is not >recommended, but the recommendations may be silent on weaker forms >of protection. aLAN At 13/11/2013 09:38 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Since these are modifications for clarity, I'll suggest one more. >One bothered me and I now have a better idea how to express what it was. > >"If the Recommendations with Consensus level or Strong support were >implemented, there is no assurance that they form a cohesive and >consistent set of policies." > >I recall this statement being questioned by members of the working >group, for it is difficult to parse. What I believe it intended is >that the selection of resolutions that achieved Consensus are not >together reflective of a single approach to the issue, and in some >cases the statements that apparently have Consensus even seem to >contradict each other. > >In light of this, I suggest this re-working of the line that is >clearer and more direct to the point. > >"The collection of Recommendations with Consensus level or Strong >support, taken as a whole, do not form a cohesive and consistent set >of policies" > > > >Thanks, > >- Evan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Minority statement for the IGO-INGO identifier protection PDP Final Report
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 14, 2013

Nov. 14, 2013

Good. Thanks. We may want to take it one step further and include part of your explanation in the text. I will give it a try tomorrow. Alan At 13/11/2013 09:38 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Since these are modifications for clarity, I'll suggest one more. >One bothered me and I now have a better idea how to express what it was. > >"If the Recommendations with Consensus level or Strong support were >implemented, there is no assurance that they form a cohesive and >consistent set of policies." > >I recall this statement being questioned by members of the working >group, for it is difficult to parse. What I believe it intended is >that the selection of resolutions that achieved Consensus are not >together reflective of a single approach to the issue, and in some >cases the statements that apparently have Consensus even seem to >contradict each other. > >In light of this, I suggest this re-working of the line that is >clearer and more direct to the point. > >"The collection of Recommendations with Consensus level or Strong >support, taken as a whole, do not form a cohesive and consistent set >of policies" > > > >Thanks, > >- Evan

1 0

Policy & Implementation Statement
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 14, 2013

Nov. 14, 2013

I have posted my first draft of a statement to the GNSO P&I WG at https://community.icann.org/x/-hSMAg. Substantive comments welcome, preferably on the wiki. I'm sure there are plenty of typos, so let me know about those as well (either on the wiki or via e-mail). I think that optimally, we should have sufficient discussion on this in BA to have a statement to send to the WG once the meeting is over. Alan

1 0

Minority statement for the IGO-INGO identifier protection PDP Final Report
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 14, 2013

Nov. 14, 2013

The final report has been drafted and can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-20sep13-en.pdf. There were significant changes from the earlier draft, but mostly in format and clarity. As a result, several of the comments that we made on the draft version are no longer applicable. I am attaching a copy of the revised statement that I propose to submit for inclusion in the report. For ease of access for those travelling, I am also appending the text to this e-mail. There were NO substantive changes made to this statement from the version approved by the ALAC (as a comment on the draft report). Only those parts no longer applicable were deleted. Those included: - removal of the list of specific ALAC positions, since they are now included in the body of the report; - removal of the reference to some items being classed as having strong divergence where there was really a consensus NOT to do them (the report now says that). To be considered by the GNSO in its meeting next Wednesday, the minority statement needs to be submitted by Friday. Unless I hear any concern with this being done, I will submit it by that deadline. If there is a problem meeting the deadline, we can still submit it before it goes to the Board, but the GNSO will not have the benefit of having it in the version they consider (presuming a decision is taken next week and it is not deferred). Alan ========================== ALAC Minority Statement on the Final Report on the Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All gTLDs PDP The ALAC has made a number of statements on the protection of IGO and INGO names, and has participated actively in all GNSO activities related to this topic. Our views on specific outcomes of this PDP are reflected in the Final Report. Given the wide range of views expressed in this report, and noting that nothing presented has received the unanimous support of the PDP Working Group, the ALAC would like to take this opportunity to comment on the nature of the Recommendations as well as identify the principles that have guided its positions. The Draft Final Report includes a wide variety of Recommendations some reflecting a WG Consensus (as defined by the GNSO Working Group Guidelines) some with an even weaker level of support. Not a single one was agreed to by all WG members (Full Consensus), a level of support that is more typical of most GNSO PDPs. For many of the recommendations originally considered by the WG and strongly supported by some, the overall participant views were Divergent. If the Recommendations with Consensus level or Strong support were implemented, there is no assurance that they form a cohesive and consistent set of policies. The ALAC is particularly concerned that granting blocking-level protections may prohibit other reasonable uses of the same strings, and is not satisfied that the exception procedure options outlined in the report could meet the targets that the ALAC believes are mandatory. This being the case, it may be important to consider the principles that guided the ALAC in our participation in the activities that led to this report, and that the ALAC believes should guide ICANN in considering any special protections. 1. ICANN should grant special protection to organizations that further the public interest and in particular, those with a strong track record of humanitarian activities. However, such protections should only be granted where there is a history or reasonable expectation that the lack of protections would lead to the misrepresentation of the organizations, fraud, deliberate confusion, or other malfeasance. 2. Such protections, when granted, should not unreasonably impinge on the ability of others with a valid right to use the protected string from registering such names for uses which do not negatively impact the protected organization nor use the protected name with the intent to deceive users. Formal trademarks should not be necessary to demonstrate such a right. [Footnote 1] 3. The procedures used to grant the protection exceptions identified in number 2 must be both inexpensive and fast. 4. No top level protections are necessary. Existing or new objection processes are sufficient. Footnote 1: Although not a gTLD registration, cern.ca is a good example. The Centre d'exposition de Rouyn-Noranda in northern Quebec has no connection or even a vague relationship with the Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire, but they do happen to share an acronym. In the gTLD space, Olympic.diy is a prime example of a new registration that might not be allowed under the proposed rules even though the TLD (diy = Do-it-yourself) is a logical registration for Olympic Paints.

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [technical-issues] Fwd: Invitation to an ICANN Advice kick-off workshop, Sunday, November 17 in Buenos Aires
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Nov. 13, 2013

Nov. 13, 2013

Dear Lutz, I wouldn't go as far as saying that ALAC is no longer necessary if the ALAC cannot fulfil its technical part of its mandate because that's what it actually is: a part of its mandate. There are many other parts too many of which are to do with capacity building and with policy development that might be non technical in nature. That said, we do have the ability to comment on *all* of ICANN's processes and some of ICANN's work is technical in nature. As a result, we need to have a strong "Technical Issues" WG and I ask you all if you would like to join the WG or if you know anyone who might be an asset to the WG. With the "retirement" of some members, I do feel that we do not have enough people who have a broad technical knowledge that can help us with our Statements and relaying of messages from the technical part of the At-Large community. Kind regards, Olivier On 13/11/2013 04:39, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:06:12AM +0800, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >> 4. The ALAC, as a community of Internet Users, is not positioned to offer >> technical advice, but our community would certainly be affected by >> technical issues and we certainly are a consumer of technical advice. We >> therefore would want that advice to be available "on tap" as and when >> needed, in an easily understandable way, but also forthcoming proactively >> when there are issues of concern such as in the case of name and variant >> collisions. > I do not agree with this point. IMHO the problem is simply the inability of > AtLarge to give the technically skilled people (we have them!) the necessary > voice. > > Most of the active AtLarge community appears to be a small group of > omnipresent people dealing with organizational issues. The AtLarge structure > makes it hard for the typical technical ones to participate and bring their > expertise in. > > If we conclude that ALAC as the visible part of AtLarge is unable to fulfil > their technical obligations, ALAC is not longer necessary for an > organization which produces mainly technically driven results. > > Yes, I'm guilty. > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

2 2

Re: [ALAC] [APAC-Discuss] [NA-Discuss] NOW OPEN: 2013 ALAC ALT and Liaison Nominations
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Nov. 13, 2013

Nov. 13, 2013

Thanks Darlene. I think it is important to have many candidates to stand for any one position so that the ALAC has room to draw from as wide a range of persons as possible. This goes for all other positions as well. On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Darlene Thompson < thompson.darlene(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to put myself forward as the .MOBI liaison. > > Thank you, > > D > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > >wrote: > > > According to the RoP, there are a total of five ALAC Leadership Team > (ALT) > > positions, one from each of the five regions, and Olivier from EURALO is > > already in the position of Chair. I also note that there is a minor issue > > in the call for nominations in that under the new RoP, we no longer have > a > > rapporteur and it should be vice-chairs instead of vice-presidents. > > > > I nominate the following for the ALT: > > > > Tijani Ben Jemaa (AFRALO) - Vice-chair > > Evan Leibovitch (NARALO) - Vice-chair > > Holly Raiche (APRALO) > > Dev Anand Teelucksingh (LACRALO) > > > > I of course support the nomination of Maureen Hilyard as ccNSO Liaison, > > and I nominate Julie Hammer as SSAC Liaison > > > > Last year I agreed to serve as GNSO Liaison with the understanding that > we > > would consciously get more people involved in GNSO activities. That has > not > > happened to any great extent. As such, if the ALAC desires, I am willing > to > > continue to serve in this capacity, but with the understanding that we > take > > posative action to get someone else into the role as quickly as possible. > > > > Alan > > > > > > At 11/11/2013 04:22 PM, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: > > > >> Dear All, > >> > >> On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, the 2013 call > for > >> nomination of ALAC Leadership Team (ALT) members and ALAC Liaisons is > now > >> open. > >> > >> ALT: > >> > >> The available positions are for the following ALT Members: > >> > >> · Vice-President (2 positions) > >> > >> · Rapporteur (1 position) > >> > >> · Regional Representative (1 position) > >> > >> Proposed ALT Schedule: > >> > >> · Call for Nominees: 11 November - 18 November > >> > >> · Nominees acceptance period: 18 November - 20 November > >> > >> · ALAC votes by consensus: 21 November > >> > >> All terms run from the end of the 2013 AGM to the end of the 2014 AGM. > >> > >> Please see the 2013 ALAC Leadership Team and Liaison Selection > Workspace< > >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ > >> 2013+ALAC+Leadership+Team+and+Liaison+Selection+Workspace> for important > >> information on the ALT requirements and responsibility > >> > >> Nominations, including self-nominations may be made directly on the 2013 > >> ALAC Leadership Team and Liaison Selection Workspace<https://community. > >> icann.org/display/atlarge/2013+ALAC+Leadership+Team+and+ > >> Liaison+Selection+Workspace> or by sending a note to At-Large > >> staff<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. Only members of the ALAC after > >> the close of the 2013 AGM are eligible for these positions. Only sitting > >> ALAC Members are eligible and entitled to vote. > >> > >> Terms run from the end of the 2013 AGM to the end of the 2014 AGM. > >> > >> Please see the 2013 ALAC Leadership Team and Liaison Selection > Workspace< > >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ > >> 2013+ALAC+Leadership+Team+and+Liaison+Selection+Workspace> for important > >> information on the ALT requirements and responsibilities. > >> > >> Nominations, including self-nominations may be made directly on the 2013 > >> ALAC Leadership Team and Liaison Selection Workspace<https://community. > >> icann.org/display/atlarge/2013+ALAC+Leadership+Team+and+ > >> Liaison+Selection+Workspace> or by sending a note to At-Large > >> staff<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. > >> > >> Liaisons: > >> > >> The available positions are for the following liaisons: > >> * ALAC Liaison to the GNSO > >> * ALAC Liaison to the ccNSO > >> * ALAC Liaison to .MOBI > >> * ALAC Liaison to the SSAC > >> > >> Proposed Liaison Schedule: > >> Call for Nominees: 11 November - 18 November > >> ALAC votes by consensus: 21 November > >> > >> All terms run from the end of the 2013 AGM to the end of the 2014 AGM. > >> > >> Please see the 2013 ALAC Leadership Team and Liaison Selection > Workspace< > >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ > >> 2013+ALAC+Leadership+Team+and+Liaison+Selection+Workspace> for important > >> information on the ALAC Liaisons requirements and responsibilities. > >> > >> Nominations, including self-nominations may be made directly on the 2013 > >> ALAC Leadership Team and Liaison Selection Workspace<https://community. > >> icann.org/display/atlarge/2013+ALAC+Leadership+Team+and+ > >> Liaison+Selection+Workspace> or by sending a note to At-Large > >> staff<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie > >> Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > >> E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto: > >> staff@atlarge.icann.org%3cmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> lac-discuss-en mailing list > >> lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en > >> > > > > ------ > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > > ------ > > > _______________________________________________ > APAC-Discuss mailing list > APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org >

1 0

Fwd: Re: Follow-up on an enquiry during Durban Public Forum
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Nov. 13, 2013

Nov. 13, 2013

Dear all, please be so kind to find the answer below, to the question which Evan had asked at the public forum in Durban. The question was: "why is Section 9 of the RAA entitled 'Registrant Benefits and Responsibilities' ?" Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Follow-up on an enquiry during Durban Public Forum Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:46:34 -0700 From: Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org> To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> CC: Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade(a)icann.org>, John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey(a)icann.org>, Cyrus Namazi <cyrus.namazi(a)icann.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Cassia Oliveira <cassia.oliveira(a)icann.org> Dear Olivier and Evan, In response to your query below, during the course of the 2013 RAA negotiations, it became clear that the negotiating teams and the community had different understandings of what purpose the document formerly referred to as "Registrant Rights and Responsibilities" was intended to serve. While the negotiating teams from ICANN and the Registrars agreed that this document would be a compilation only of obligations clearly found in the contract, the community input at public sessions on this topic, as well as in the public comment forum, suggested that the "Registrant Rights and Responsibilities" document should serve a broader scope, encompassing issues such as external legal rights relating to privacy and intellectual property. As explained in the summary of public comments on a proposed final version of the RAA, "For the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document, there were two versions of a new document posted by commenters as alternatives to the version posted for comment. The current Registrant Rights and Responsibilities document, as posted with the agreement, was not mean to be a full statement of all registrant rights and responsibilities arising out of being a domain name registrant. Rather, it is specifically targeted to identify contractual rights and responsibilities that are stated within the RAA, as opposed to looking to consensus policy or to broader principles of privacy rights. While the suggestions raised in the versions presented during the comment period incorporate some ideas that could be of great value for the community to discuss, they are not geared to the limited purpose of the document. To help clarify the purpose of the document, ICANN will be considering clarifying the title of the document prior to finalizing the RAA." http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/report-comments-proposed-raa-21 jun13-en.pdf. The term "benefits" was agreed upon by ICANN and the Registrars Negotiating Team to achieve two purposes - first, to clarify the purpose of the document so that it was not seen a broad, sweeping statement of registrant rights, as commenters clearly identified. Second, the use of the term "benefits" helps denote a balance between the listing of key contractual responsibilities to which registrants are bound, and the positive things that the registrants are provided under the agreement, such as access to information. There is no explicit legal meaning that we were trying to afford to the word "benefit", instead the focus was on removing the confusion inherent in the continued use of the term "rights" where not all applicable rights were enumerated. Best, Samantha -- Samantha Eisner Senior Counsel, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90094 Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 samantha.eisner(a)icann.org On 9/25/13 6:33 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: >ALAC Correspondence Ref: AL-ALAC-CO-0913-01-00-EN > >Dear Fadi, > >I am following up on a question which was asked as an individual by my >colleague Evan Leibovitch during the Public Forum in Durban: > >Quoting the transcript of the session, page 87: > >EVAN LEIBOVITCH: Thanks, Steve. I'm Evan Leibovitch, vice chair of the >ALAC speaking on my own behalf. But this is based on a number of >conversations with a number of people within the At-Large and elsewhere. >Without coordinating it at all with Phil, it relates to something he >said and it has to do with the relationship between benefits and rights. >Somewhere, somehow, section 9 of the RAA had some strange search and >replace happen where the words "rights" were taken out and >"responsibilities" put in. Not only that but it was done in a confusing >way. The document for section 9 heading says "benefits and >responsibilities" and the first section talks about rights. Since then >there have been many talks this week about rights and responsibilities. >The "B" word hasn't been used anywhere, but there it is in the RAA. Can >someone explain how it crept in, why it's there, and what is meant by >the distinction between rights and benefits? I think to a lot of people, >there's a very real distinction in the word. I'd like to know how it >crept into the RAA. > >STEVE CROCKER: Management response here? > >FADI CHEHADE: We'll look into that. That's all I can say. I'm trying to >find out some facts, but I appreciate your comment. I appreciate the >distinction between the two. That's all I can say. > >--- end of transcript --- > >The ALAC has discussed this point during its August and its September >monthly calls and on its mailing lists and this has proved to be a >particularly important point which needed clarification. I am therefore >writing to you to ask for this clarification. > >It is understood that the RAA is a legal contractual document, several >copies of which were signed in Durban. The page in question is Section >9, entitled "Registrants' Benefits and Responsibilities", page 68. > >Until the title of this section appeared, the notion of "Registrant >Rights and Responsibilities" was the notion that prevailed, certainly in >the At-Large world. As Evan Leibovitch mentions in his comment during >the public meeting, there is much difference between a Registrants' >Rights and a Registrants' Benefits. > >But the confusion is then exacerbated by the fact that the next line on >that same RAA page is a sub-heading of "Domain Name Registrants' Rights" >and the list printed on that page very clearly reads as a list of >Registrant Rights. RAA signatories are therefore clearly signing on a >list of Registrants' Rights. > >Furthermore, Section 3.16 of the same RAA document points to "an >educational webpage summarizing the terms of the Registrar Accreditation >Agreement and related Consensus Policies (as of the date of this >Agreement, located at: >http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/registrant-rights-responsibilities-en.h >tm)." > >On the other hand, Section 3.7.10 mentions "Registrants' Benefits and >Responsibilities" as: "Registrar shall publish on its website(s) and/or >provide a link to the Registrants¹ Benefits and Responsibilities >Specification attached hereto and shall not take any action inconsistent >with the corresponding provisions of this Agreement or applicable law." > >and: > >"3.12.7 Its Resellers shall publish on their website(s) and/or provide a >link to the Registrants¹ Benefits and Responsibilities Specification >attached hereto and shall not take any action inconsistent with the >corresponding provisions of this Agreement or applicable law." > >So what we have is references to both Rights and Benefits, and I, like >my colleague Evan Leibovitch, would like to point out that these are >entirely different words meaning entirely different things -- and I note >that from your response in the ICANN Public Forum, you appreciate the >distinction between the two. > >Would you then please kindly provide clarification as to how the title >of that section is called "Registrants' Benefits and Responsibilities" >when there are clearly no "Benefits" but indeed there are "Rights" listed? > >Warmest regards, > >Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond >ALAC Chair

2 1

Board seat electorate
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 13, 2013

Nov. 13, 2013

It appears that we have an issue that was not thought about when the new ALAC RoP were contemplated. Specifically, we have a person who will be both a RALO Chair and an ALAC member (for APRALO), thus holding two votes in the Board member election. From my point of view, this is not a great situation. We can either leave things as they are, or approve an additional rule allowing the Chair vote to be cast by someone else. That is similar to rules we already have for potential voters who cannot vote due a conflict. Since the RoP are silent on this issue, the under RoP 10.1.3, the ALAC is empowered to approve an additional rule without formally modifying the RoP. I would suggest the following. The second sentence also covers another case we forgot, specifically if an ALAC member is sick or otherwise unavailable to participate. >If A RALO Chair is not currently filled, or unavailable to >participate as an elector, or should the RALO Chair also hold a vote >as an ALAC member, the RALO for his/her region will name a >replacement for the purposes of the vote. This replacement must be >approved by vote of the RALO according to its rules. If an ALAC >member is unavailable to participate as an elector, the RALO for >his/her region will name a replacement for the purposes of the vote. >This replacement must be approved by vote of the RALO according to its rules. If we want to make such a change, it should really be done in BA. Alan

9 8

Re: [ALAC] Board seat electorate
by tijani.benjemaa＠topnet.tn Nov. 13, 2013

Nov. 13, 2013

Good morning, I do support the modification proposed by Alan. In the meantime, and since we will change the RoP, I propose to add a restriction for the number of candidates added by RALOs on the slate: Each RALO can not support more than 1 candidate to be added on the slate. The reason of such modification is to avoid to have 5 additionnal candidates who failed the evaluation process, and who are proposed to be added. Tijani On mer 13/11/13 4:55 , Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: > Dear Alan, > > thank you for proposing a potential solution. Everyone - please be so > kind to indicate support or make alternative proposals. > Many thanks, > > Olivier > > On 12/11/2013 19:49, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > It appears that we have an issue that was not thought about when the > > new ALAC RoP were contemplated. Specifically, we have a person who > > will be both a RALO Chair and an ALAC member (for APRALO), thus > > holding two votes in the Board member election. From my point of view, > > this is not a great situation. > > > > We can either leave things as they are, or approve an additional rule > > allowing the Chair vote to be cast by someone else. That is similar to > > rules we already have for potential voters who cannot vote due a > > conflict. Since the RoP are silent on this issue, the under RoP > > 10.1.3, the ALAC is empowered to approve an additional rule without > > formally modifying the RoP. I would suggest the following. The second > > sentence also covers another case we forgot, specifically if an ALAC > > member is sick or otherwise unavailable to participate. > > > >> If A RALO Chair is not currently filled, or unavailable to > >> participate as an elector, or should the RALO Chair also hold a vote > >> as an ALAC member, the RALO for his/her region will name a > >> replacement for the purposes of the vote. This replacement must be > >> approved by vote of the RALO according to its rules. If an ALAC > >> member is unavailable to participate as an elector, the RALO for > >> his/her region will name a replacement for the purposes of the vote. > >> This replacement must be approved by vote of the RALO according to > >> its rules. > > > > If we want to make such a change, it should really be done in BA. > > > > Alan > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [1] > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [2] > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL > AC[3]) > > > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html [4] > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [5] > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [6] > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL > AC[7]) > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=https://atlarge-lists.icann.org > /mailman/listinfo/alac[2] > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=http://www.atlarge.icann.org > [3] > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=https://community.icann.org/dis > play/atlarge/At-Large%2BAdvisory%2BCommittee%2B%28ALAC[4] > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > [5] > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=https://atlarge-lists.icann.org > /mailman/listinfo/alac[6] > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=http://www.atlarge.icann.org > [7] > http://webmail.topnet.tn/parse.php?redirect=https://community.icann.org/dis > play/atlarge/At-Large%2BAdvisory%2BCommittee%2B%28ALAC >

3 2