At 26/11/2015 09:29 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 27 Nov 2015 00:12, "Alan Greenberg" <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I now think I understand the issue here, and
it is indeed an issue of how the ALAC works.
SO: I am glad to read this part ;-)
<snip> Thanks for explaining the process.
. So if only 1 or 2 ALAC members disagree with something, we can still claim to have consensus. with 3/15 (20%), it is right on the line and I would probably not declare a consensus is in that case. In the case at hand, one person disagreed. That should not be ignored (and I did explain why I disagreed), and no one else supported your position.
SO: Yes correct and that is absolutely understandable by me as it's similar to how we observe consensus within AfriNIC (where I serve as Co-Chair). The difference is that Chair always come back to declare the outcome so we can move to next item
So I felt that there was a strong (but not unanimous) consensus to proceed with the plan.
SO: This is where the confusion came for me as it was not possible to know what the Chair felt remotely(at times it's not physically ;-) ). I was being careful not to act on what has not been declared by the Chair ( AFRALO leadership on this list, would confirm that we were making plans at AFRALO level but just waiting for the declaration from Chair). So I guess going forward, it should be clear on how many number of days (or hours) one should wait for any opposing view before assuming consensus (even if the Chair did not formerly declare it)
Hopefully this particular case, and our general methodology is now clear.
SO: Yes indeed, and hopefully the motivation for me abstaining when we voted is also now understood. Now that we are clear, I do like to formerly update my abstain to a +1 (if it's possible)
Regards
Alan
At 24/11/2015 03:59 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Alan,
Just for the record, here is the follow-up mail I sent to the list and I also sent you a private follow-up message when I did not hear from you Alan (both of which did not receive a response).
There was discussion on item 1 of what you said you required and there was no indication on whether item 2 and 3 was in effect so I wrote requesting confirmation of that. This could also be an issue with me getting used to how ALAC operates but perhaps your response would have helped.
For the record, AFRALO would have organised her nominations just that we(I) thought there was still discussion on item 1 and that item 2 and 3 was pending.
Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 18 Nov 2015 13:01, "Seun Ojedeji" <<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji@gmail.com > wrote:
Hello Alan,
Can you confirm if your proposal for 1 nomination each at ALAC and RALO level respectively is now in effect? so regions can organise. Will be good to know the deadline for the nomination.
Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 18 Nov 2015 00:59, "Alan Greenberg" <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: There is no formal rule against endorsing candidates who did not identify ALAC in the application. However, I see little merit in evaluating all 72 applications, and for the reasons that Cheryl, outlines, I do not think it proper for us to unilaterally "adopt" a candidate.
If you know of someone who you think we should consider, please let me know and I will contact them privately.
Alan
At 17/11/2015 12:50 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: That is a good idea, but I would prefer to do this endorsement and then establish the rules associated with the group's ongoing task. There is not enough time to do that properly and have it formally sanctioned by the ALAC and then get this endorsement carried out.
Regarding selection of candidates who did not identify ALAC of a target group. Good question. I will look into it.
Alan
At 17/11/2015 02:39 AM, Sébastien Bachollet wrote: Thanks Alan for putting the proposal together, I support your proposal. It is important that we embarque in this choice both ALAC and the Ralos.
However, can we have this group set-up for one year and to be in charge of all the endorsements during that year?
One question: Can we support people even if they didnùt ask for ALAC endorsement?
All the best
Skills are useful but diversity is essential.
Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: <http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/>http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <<mailto:sebastien@bachollet.com>sebastien@bachollet.com >
Le 17/11/2015 03:12, ë Alan Greenberg û < <mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > a écrit :
In Dublin I suggested that the ALT recommend who to endorse for the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team and there was a strong feeling within the ALAC that this responsibility not be given to the ALT. The applicants have now been announced and we need to decide who to endorse - <https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/aoc/cct/applications>https://www.icann.org/resources/reviews/aoc/cct/applications.
I suggest that we use the same composition for the selection team as we have for a number of other recent groups, for each region, one ALAC Member selected by the Members from that region, and one person selected by the RALO leadership. No one who has submitted an application is eligible to serve of the endorsement group. All team members will need to:
- Be familiar with the purpose of the Review ( <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-e>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/call-volunteers-cct-rt-2015-10-01-e
n). - Review the Applications. - Prepare a brief evaluation of each candidate (details to be provided).
Endorsements are due no later than 14 December.
Nine people indicated that they were seeking ALAC endorsements, five seeking only an ALAC endorsement, and four list multiple alternatives.
I am happy to have the ALAC delegate the endorsements to this group, and if the ALAC agrees, there will be no need for the ALAC to ratify the endorsements.
We will be scheduling the first (and possibly only) meeting of the group for the week on November 30th, so please submit names within the next week to ensure that we can select a suitable time for the meeting.
To be clear, I am looking for:
1. Any objections to having the group make the endorsements without further ALAC action.
2. The name of the ALAC member from each region to participate in the endorsement process.
3. The name of the regional appointee from each region to participate in the endorsement process.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
LAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)