AS I mentioned, we should only use proxies if we settle on the rules in detail ahead of time. We tried to use them for the ATRT selection, and it did not work well at all, because we had not agreed ahead of time who could hold a proxy and we even had the situation of the person given a proxy not being able to vote and giving a third person their proxy. Alan At 18/08/2010 04:39 PM, Vanda UOL wrote:

Just to remind that the basic problem we had in LACRALO was due to the lack of clear proxy procedure best vanda -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 2:18 AM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] ALAC Rule of Procedure for Selecting Director

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. 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.

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

Thanks Tijani. My comments below. At 20/08/2010 12:47 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

Alan,

First of all, thank you very much for this wonderful work. Please find below my comments:

27.2 · The name of the BSPC (not important matter) could be refined to reflect its mission. I propose Selection Process Supervision (or Supervising) Committee (SPSC).

I played with a lot of names before coming up with BSPC. I think it needs "Board" in it, and was trying to keep it to no more than 4 letters. I liked the intent of "oversigtht" but thought it sounded too bureaucratic. Ultimately I agree that the name doesn't matter as long as it is not overly complex and not misleading.

· The composition of this committee is not addressed here (number of members? how they are appointed? are they volunteers or not? is the committee open to any At-Large member? etc.)

That was deliberate (although not everyone might not agree). In many organizations, this function is handles by an "Elections Chair" named by the Board, perhaps with 1 or 2 other people. In our fashion, we used a regionally balanced group and due to the very large importance and workload of designing the process from scratch, we had 2 people per region. I think that in future years, the effort will be greatly reduced. But until we go through a cycle, it is really hard to say. So I left it flexible. Ultimately, the ALAC at the time will need to decide what it needs. If we put in a firm structure, it will still be changeable by them, so it did not seem important to lock in a structure at this time.

27.7 · Can a candidate (on the final slate) be a voter among the electorate members?

Assuming they get the Bylaw wording right, the answer is no. Certainly in the SOs, the Bylaws are explicit in a candidate not participating in the discussion or vote to select the Board member (even to select the OTHER Board member where there are two positions open). So I am assuming that the intent is to make the same rule for us. But in the draft Bylaws they got the wording very much wrong to do this. So I assumed that it is a Bylaw issue and we do not need a special rule ourselves.

· Consider the case of a candidate (on the final slate) who is an ALAC member or a RALO Chair 27.8

Looking at the existing Bylaws for SOs, it is clear that a candidate cannot vote. But they can be replaced for the purposes of the director selection "by the body that named them". So a RALO could put someone else in their place for this purpose only. For the NomCom appointed ALAC members, there is no practical way that the NomCom will replace them temporarily, which is why in my Bylaw comments I suggested that the RALO from the region they represent could name someone temporarily.

a. Why the electronic vote is not considered?

I guess I just assumed it was a given that it could be electronic. But you are correct. It should be said explicitly.

b. – c. – d. ... greater than or equal to 50%....

No, I don't think so. For most votes, the winning threshold is more than 50%. Would we want to have someone elected with only 1/2 the votes? I thought we decided on this multiple step process to make sure that the person who won really had a majority.

e. How can possibly be a tie if the condition is “greater than 50%”. I assume you mean “greater then or equal to 50%” 27.9

No. I think it says what I meant. There are two possible outcomes if there are two candidates: Either one of them has >50% and is declared the winner, or there is a tie.

Among the things that should be preserved the White paper. Besides, I even think that we should mention it in the very beginning of the rule 27

Agreed. Certainly that document and the later ones need to be part of the history. I'm not sure we need to list them all, since we are still around to archive them now. I was focusing on a rule to ensure that later generations did the same. I am not sure about putting the history at the beginning. Although I don't think Bylaws typically include this (and our RoP is equivalent to our Bylaws), perhaps it is a good idea.

Again, thank you Alan.

And thanks to you for taking the time to comment. Alan

------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 : mercredi 18 août 2010 22:40 À : Vanda UOL; 'ALAC Working List' Objet : Re: [ALAC] ALAC Rule of Procedure for Selecting Director

AS I mentioned, we should only use proxies if we settle on the rules in detail ahead of time. We tried to use them for the ATRT selection, and it did not work well at all, because we had not agreed ahead of time who could hold a proxy and we even had the situation of the person given a proxy not being able to vote and giving a third person their proxy.

Alan

At 18/08/2010 04:39 PM, Vanda UOL wrote:

...

Just to remind that the basic problem we had in LACRALO was due to the lack of clear proxy procedure best vanda -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 2:18 AM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] ALAC Rule of Procedure for Selecting Director

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. 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.

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 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 ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac