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/alac/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.org/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.org
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 <http://iipl.org.cn/>http://iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China
Alan, I don't agree we are facing an either or situation: we do not have to choose between having a voting director and liaison, we can and should argue for both. That there will be a voting director for at large is certain, the board will not go back on that decision now. But the liaison position is not gone and trying to keep it is important to the future of ALAC's ability to provide advice to the board and community. Unlike the supporting organizations, and even GAC, the bylaws do not require ICANN to take At Large's advice. The new director can certainly represent user interests, but we know they cannot be our representative on the board. Suggest that the bylaws amendments you have drafted go forward, except that we do not accept the sections deleting the liaison. We can provide text to explain why (I've written some before on this list.) In addition to weakening At Large/ALAC's ability to provide advice/recommendations to the board, if we loose the board advisory role the supporting organizations we currently have liaisons with may re-consider those relationships. I know some constituencies have already mentioned this. And I think it's mistaken to think that once the at large director is in place we can return to arguing for the (then lost) liaison role and even the second director position the At Large review recommended. The board will consider that part of the review done, I can't see them reopening the process. Won't happen, at least not until the next review, many years from now. I think it's important the RALOs discuss this and come back with advice. Adam
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/alac/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.org/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.org
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 <http://iipl.org.cn/>http://iipl.org.cn/ 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
And... another option would be to follow Evan's proposal made during the Brussels meeting to have ALAC sign-off on policy (broadly similar, I think, to GAC's role) At 12:46 PM +0200 6/24/10, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Desspite our serious protest, it appears that At-Large will be transitioning from a liaison to the Board to electing (er, *selecting*) a member of the Board (who will then be organizationally independant of At-Large).
Given this loss of direct influence, I offer this comment:
At yesterday's EURALO Showcase, Board member Dennis Jennings clearly stated that ALAC ought to have a stronger role as part of ICANN's policy development process. I agree. We should consider proposing to the SIC that At-Large oversight / signoff be a required "check mark" in all ICANN policy development (such as GNSO PDPs). (Think of this the way that a building plan being proposed in a city has to have sign-off approval by engineering, environmental assessment, public works, etc). There may be some fears that this constitutes a potential ALAC veto of GNSO policy -- while I wouild like that personally, that may be too much to ask. However, we should have the right to send back for revision, parts of policy which we perceive to be clearly against the public interest.
Later at the same event, Board member Jean-Jacques Subrenat acknowledged that At-Large tasks and responsibilities are growing faster than its staff support, and risks falling behind through no fault of its own.
If these comments are sincere -- and I have no reason to believe they are not -- then we have an opportunity to direct our evolving role, rather than to allow others to evolve it for us,.
-- - Evan
I'd prefer us to argue for all options. Adam At 4:45 PM +0900 8/22/10, Adam Peake wrote:
Alan, I don't agree we are facing an either or situation: we do not have to choose between having a voting director and liaison, we can and should argue for both.
That there will be a voting director for at large is certain, the board will not go back on that decision now. But the liaison position is not gone and trying to keep it is important to the future of ALAC's ability to provide advice to the board and community. Unlike the supporting organizations, and even GAC, the bylaws do not require ICANN to take At Large's advice. The new director can certainly represent user interests, but we know they cannot be our representative on the board.
Suggest that the bylaws amendments you have drafted go forward, except that we do not accept the sections deleting the liaison. We can provide text to explain why (I've written some before on this list.)
In addition to weakening At Large/ALAC's ability to provide advice/recommendations to the board, if we loose the board advisory role the supporting organizations we currently have liaisons with may re-consider those relationships. I know some constituencies have already mentioned this.
And I think it's mistaken to think that once the at large director is in place we can return to arguing for the (then lost) liaison role and even the second director position the At Large review recommended. The board will consider that part of the review done, I can't see them reopening the process. Won't happen, at least not until the next review, many years from now.
I think it's important the RALOs discuss this and come back with advice.
Adam
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/alac/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.org/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.org
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 <http://iipl.org.cn/>http://iipl.org.cn/ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
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
On 22 Aug 2010, at 14:36, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
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 don’t have the same interest…
I don't want to reply for Alan. My perspective is that the current crowd of seasoned ICANN insiders have learned the rules of the game, both the written rules and the unwritten ones. They have learnt how to strategize their behaviour, positions, etc. In short, they have become professional policy makers (even though they might be volunteers) who accept the current framework. On the other hand, I think the Internet user community could be better served by someone questioning the need for these rules and what seems to be a gospel that cannot be challenged. As an example, just asking if there could be a way for the naming system to support multiple roots, multiple registries for the same TLD, etc, is enough to get you stoned by the community. I would like to see an At-Large director asking disturbing questions, rather than someone who contributes to maintain the status quo, and only try to limit the damage to individuals. Deconstructivism, il you like. Patrick
I think that there is a large intersection and hopefully the issues that are of interest to users are fully contained within At-Large (sometimes the poor response from the majority of At-Large in specific user-related issues makes me wonder). But not necessarily the other way. For instance, if you took a poll of active At-Large people regarding the current discussion on GAs and a Summit. the answer surely come out that it is important. If you took a poll of Internet users not involved with ICANN, I do not think the result would be the same. That doesn't mean that it would not be in the long term interest of users to have a vibrant ICANN At-Large and thus GAs and a Summit would be good for them. But that requires a series of logical deductions that may or may not be obvious to some. Does that make it any clearer? Alan At 22/08/2010 08:36 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
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/alac/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_p rocedure>https://st.icann.org/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.org
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 <http://iipl.org.cn/>http://iipl.org.cn/ 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
participants (4)
-
Adam Peake -
Alan Greenberg -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Tijani BEN JEMAA