Alan, My personal opinion is that At-Large would be better served by a Liaison, but that Internet user community is better served by a good voting Board member. Hummm, you believe At-Large and Internet user community dont have the same interest ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------------ -----Message d'origine----- De : alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg Envoyé : dimanche 22 août 2010 03:52 À : Hong Xue Cc : ALAC Working List Objet : Re: [ALAC] ALAC Rule of Procedure for Selecting Director Well, the Board resolution on which this is all based was very clear about replacing the Liaison with the voting Board member. If our intent is to turn back the clock and go back to just a Liaison (as some people indeed feel would be best and have since the start of these discussions), then this is a good time to raise the issue. If we really want the voting Board member, then my inclination is to get that put in place and then based on experience, try to argue for putting back the Liaison (presumably instead of a second voting Board member). I just don't see how we could get both at the same time at this moment. There are certainly some Board members who want to see the voting position go forward, and no doubt some who would prefer the status quo. I don't think there are many who would buy one voting and one liaison at this time. It's not a perfect situation, but that is how I read things. We need to make up our minds which is more important and go for it. My personal opinion is that At-Large would be better served by a Liaison, but that Internet user community is better served by a good voting Board member. Alan At 21/08/2010 08:25 PM, Hong Xue wrote:
Thanks to Alan for the comprehensive comments. Another issue that
has been raised in Brussels but not sufficiently discussed ever
since is whether we want to advocate to keep the Board liaison along
with the selected At-Large Board Member. To my memory, draft bylaws
replace the liaison with the Board member. We may wish to comment on
this specific point as well.
Hong
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Alan Greenberg
<<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
While drafting my comments on the draft Bylaws associated with the
At-Large Director, I realized that we will need to formally put our
selection procedures into the ALAC Rules of Procedure (RoP).
I have done a first draft which can be found at
<https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_rule_27>https://st.icann.org/ala c/index.cgi?draft_rule_27.
I am also attaching a PDF version for your convenience.
The current RoP (Rev10) is pointed to at
<https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure>https://st.icann.or g/alac/index.cgi?rules_of_procedure.
The new draft rule includes Rationale's for some of the sub-rules.
These rationales would not be part of the final rule, but are there
to explain what I am proposing.
With a few exceptions, the draft corresponds to the process that has
been agreed upon and has been given to the Board SIC. They are
specified in general terms, to allow the process to be refined based
on what we learn during this current process, and without having to
formally alter the RoP each time.
There are two new parts that I am suggesting.
First, although we have had some general discussions about proxy
voting, we have never agreed on any rules, and we never discussed
this in the context of the At-Large Director selection process. I am
suggesting that we allow proxies *IF* we come up with some general
rules (applicable for all votes) or if we develop some for the
Director selection process only. Essentially this rule says that
proxies are allowed *IF* we define exactly how they will work. If we
do this, it will ensure that we do not disenfranchise some RALOs.
Second, our voting methodology said that we will use random
selection in the case of a tie. I think that it would be a really
poor outcome if we end up selecting our Director by a random
selection. I am proposing that if there is a tie, that the vote can
be held a second time which would allow some voters to alter their
vote. This *may* reduce the need for random selection.
I am suggesting that we discuss this on the list and schedule a vote
for the next ALAC meeting. I suggest that staff take any messages
posted to the list and add them as comments to the wiki. If we
cannot come to closure in the remaining time, the vote could be
delayed, but it is important that we have the rule in place sometime
in the near future.
To adopt a new rule or change existing rules, it takes a 2/3 vote of
all ALAC members who are voting in that ballot.
I look forward to hearing comments on this.
Alan
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
<mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.or g
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: <http://st.icann.org/alac>http://st.icann.org/alac
--
Dr. Hong Xue
Professor of Law
Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
Beijing Normal University
19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
Beijing 100875 China
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac