I guess such proposals to reenter into the pool any candidate that the BCEC had analyzed and decided to not select, is not a good practice.
If each Ralo will decide to ask to reenter their candidate, each time, will be an infinite process. 
In my view, we shall agree that once the committee is settled and agreed, with representation from all Ralos, we shall also agree on accept the committee decision or for what we need a committee?
 
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
Sorry for any typos.
 
 
 
 
 
From: ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 15:18
To: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>
Cc: 'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
Subject: Re: [ALAC] Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure
 
I think Tijani is onto something regarding normalizing how RALOs may add a Board candidate to the list. However I caution against an approach that bakes it in the RoP a clause for a uniform procedure incumbent on all RALOs.
 
This could be seen as a route to manufacture consent. And in my view, the process should impose administrative rules discouraging this kind of activity.
 
Mute by malice or not, silence sometimes speak louder than words. Maybe my RALO already has a candidate and for that reason, would not engage in handicapping. It would be upsetting to have a long formal process to declare interest/no interest when it is very clear my local RALO would rather sit on its hands than endorse such a candidate parachuted into the process from another region.
 
As to the matter of individual membership, I think all that needs to happen at the ALAC RoP end  is a recognition of standing for individual members and with it, a non-discrimination clause.
 
-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================
 
 
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:10 AM Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> wrote:

Alan and all,

 

I went through the RoP review proposed by Alan, and I accept most of them except 2:

 

19.9.1: I find the language confusing. I propose the following in stead:

Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if a RALO believes that the BCEC erred in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations and outreach both within each RALO and Between all RALOs so that the other RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similarly compelling interest in the additional candidate.

This is for clarity

Also, I have a concern about each RALO using whatever methodology they choose to decide whether they have interest in the additional candidate. We have today an experience of 3 selections (2010, 2014, 2017) and I chaired the BMSPC for 2 of them. I recommend that all actions related to the Board member selection by At-Large be done trough a common set of rules for all the RALOs including those related to the petition. This is because we need the whole RALO members decide whether they have interest in the additional candidate, not the RALO Chair nor its leadership team. This rules must be very well detailed so that there is no room for interpretation.

 

19.11.8: I don’t know why no abstain option should be for the very first round of vote. Suppose there are 5 candidates and I don’t believe that any of them can be a good for this position. How shall I do? If I accept the proposal of Alan, I should either not vote or vote for someone who I believe is not a good one.

 

By the way, I had a long discussion with Alan about including the 2017 BMSPC recommendations in the RoP, and Alan think that such modifications of the RoP need more discussion to be accepted by the At-Large members and then included in the RoP. I accepted his opinion and look forward to this discussion and the related RoP modifications before we start the next board member selection process in 2020.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tijani BEN JEMAA

Executive Director

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)

Phone: +216 98 330 114

          +216 52 385 114

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Le 11 oct. 2018 à 00:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > a écrit :

 

Olivier,

To be clear, you made several changes from the proposed text, some you highlighted in red and others were just slipped in. Can you confirm if all were intentional?

a) replace "each RALO" with "RALOs"  (not noted in red)

b) replaced "erred" with "did not make a good decsision"

c) removed the word "compelling"  (not noted in red)

c) added (s) to match the plural case earlier in the sentence.

a) the "each" was added to make it clear that each RALO needed to make an independent decision. But I agree it is awkward wording since it flips between talking about a single RALO and all RALOs. That needs fixing.

b) I don't really see the difference between the two, but don't care much either

c) again the reason that this paragraph was being adjust was to convey just this part. That the RALO feels STRONGLY that the candidate must be added back, not just is willing to live with it.

d) good catch.

Alan

At 10/10/2018 12:34 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:

Dear Seun, Alan,

On 10/10/2018 14:11, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

19.9.1 - Edits suggests that all RALO must agree that BCEC erred, was that the intention? I think that may be very difficult to achieve especially in a highly tense political setup.(am not saying we have that now, but the RoP is to be future proof)

The intent is that for a person to be added to the ballot, three RALOs must each feel strongly that the BCEC erred. The BCEC is made up of people selected by the RALOs and in the view of the group that agreed on this process, it should be a high bar to tell the BCEC that it erred. If we do not as a matter of course, trust the BCEC to do its deliberations carefully, why do we bother with the process at all? 

SO: I was one of the last BSMPC or is it BCEC and remember that recommendation and i agree with 3 RALOs, but the current wording suggests all RALOs must have to support the petition from a particular RALO.

The number of supporting RALOs is given in 19.9.3 but I agree that there is some potential for ambiguity/confusion in 19.9.1.

May I suggest:

19.9.1 Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if RALOs believe that the BCEC did not make a good decision in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations within a RALO, and outreach between RALOs so that those RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similar interest in the additional candidate(s).

Best,

Olivier

_______________________________________________

ALAC mailing list

ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org

https://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)

 

_______________________________________________

ALAC mailing list

ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org

https://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)