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@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@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@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
I support it as well. Best Sandra (Note: This message was send from my iPhone - I do apologise for any misspelling.) Am 13.11.2013 um 06:03 schrieb tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn:
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@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@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@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
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+(ALA...)
Several comments: - I was not proposing a formal change to the RoP document at this time - such a change requires a quite complicated procedure. Since the proposal is not changing anything that is already in the RoP, the ALAC can implement the proposal by a simple decision process. Of course, it should later be incorporated into the RoP). - The change that Tijani is proposing would require a formal change of the RoP because it changes existing provisions (19.9.1 ... RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list... and 19.9.3 Candidates will be added only if they receive support ... of at least three of the five RALOs...) - I am not sure what the real problem is that it is fixing, that is so urgent as to require a change in the middle of the selection process. - We had MUCH discussion about the RALO additional candidate process and the current procedure was put in place quite deliberately. The proposal would limit the number of candidates added by RALOs to 1, something that I personally might be able to support, but a very significant change from what the ABSdt designed with the approval of At-Large. Alan At 13/11/2013 04:03 AM, tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn wrote:
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.
participants (3)
-
Alan Greenberg -
sandra hoferichter -
tijani.benjemaa＠topnet.tn