As I was creating the finale approved version of the RoP, I realized that
I had made an error. During the last review, Sebastien had suggested that
the ALAC Member seconding the motion to reappoint the Board Member should
be from a different region. There was no objection and I readily agreed
to make that change. However, I never did.
Although the omission does not alter the final impact of such a motion, I
agreed with Sebastien that it set the right tone. I'm not sure it is
worth redoing the vote to correct my mistake, but that is certainly
possible.
Alternatively, I would suggest that this be noted for the next revision,
and if such a motion is made in the interim, I would suggest that the
Chair ensure that there is multi-region support prior to initiating
discussion of the motion.
Alan
At 2022-08-16 01:20 AM, ICANN At-Large Staff via ALAC wrote:
Dear All,
Following the close of the ALAC vote on the ALAC Rules of Procedure
(RoPs) revision, the revisions have been adopted with option B (Super
Majority).
Please see the detailed vote results below:
ALAC vote on the RoP Revision.
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.