Re: [ALAC] Final Draft of White Paper on At-Large Board Member Selection (ABS) and Appointment process for your pre release feedback
2010/1/10 Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> I'd like to white paper to make clear At Large believes it essential it has
a second Director position, and until such time as there is a second voting Director the liaison should remain.
The scope of the White Paper was intended to be limited to the mechanics of choosing a Director, with the desired result being a process that would be presented to -- and endorsed by -- the Board. The White Paper identified weaknesses in having a single Director but did not engage in direct advocacy for a position that has -- at least for now -- been explicitly rejected by the Board. I agree that the push for second director/liaison still needs to be made, but I'm not sure that a process recommendation is the place to do it. The paper doesn't recommend the size of the slate/number of candidates on
the ballot, but I get the sense it might be quite late (12+) Or am I missing something?
That was explicitly discussed. Under the original process that was developed at the NARALO brainstorm, this might well have been the result. Under the process recommended in the White Paper, the ABSC would be charged with finding qualified candidates and producing a list. No explicit limits have yet been defined, but the White Paper suggests that it should be between two and four for any given election. Once that initial list is released, "petition" candidates that were rejected by the ABSC can be put back on the ballot. While there has been no limit on the number of petition candidates, they will require endorsement by three RALOs so there should not be many added this way. The final recommendation may have explicit limits if we wish.
If RALO's can direct how their delegates vote then the processes the RALO uses to decide on which candidate to vote for should be transparent, rules made clear before hand.
Agreed. The proposal is that the Chair of each RALO will have a directed vote -- it is up to each region's RoP whether its ALAC representatives may be directed in the same manner. One option is to automate the process, so that the preference of the ALSs is submitted directly as a vote without the Chair's intervention. That will work, at least, for a single round. - Evan
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:06:35 -0500, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
2010/1/10 Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp>
If RALO's can direct how their delegates vote then the processes the RALO uses to decide on which candidate to vote for should be transparent, rules made clear before hand.
Agreed. The proposal is that the Chair of each RALO will have a directed vote -- it is up to each region's RoP whether its ALAC representatives may be directed in the same manner.
One option is to automate the process, so that the preference of the ALSs is submitted directly as a vote without the Chair's intervention. That will work, at least, for a single round.
The option to automate the process and remove the RALO chair ad personam from the voting process altogether would be most welcome. I would further suggest that the vote appears under a generic name (eg 'EURALO_VOTE') and that it should also apply to those RALO-elected ALAC members. The goal here is to depersonalize this step of the voting process. Indeed, these people will not express their personal opinion, but only pass on the vote of their RALO. Actually, we do not even need these people to check the boxes on the voting form. This can be handled by the staff as a purely administrative process. Anything we can do to avoid the perception that the ALSes choice could in any way be filtered by a 'clique' (to use the report's wording) would be most welcome. Patrick
2010/1/11 Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu> The option to automate the process and remove the RALO chair ad personam
from the voting process altogether would be most welcome. I would further suggest that the vote appears under a generic name (eg 'EURALO_VOTE') and that it should also apply to those RALO-elected ALAC members.
The level to which (elected) ALAC members are bound to the decisions of their RALO differs from region to region. While you are welcome to encourage EURALO to adopt such practise, it is unreasonable to insist that every region adhere to your personal opinion. An approach in which the region places trust in its elected representatives may work better for some regions. After all, the element of trust is already a requirement of this process, because once elected the At-Large-appointed Director has absolutely no accountability to the community that elected him/her. Anything we can do to avoid the perception that the ALSes choice could in
any way be filtered by a 'clique' (to use the report's wording) would be most welcome.
I would remind you that this "clique" exists through the direct mandate of the ALSs, for terms that are shorter than those of Directors. I would also remind you that in the proposed process, it is not the ALAC but an independent committee (made up of community members appointed by the ALSs) that chooses who gets on the ballot. Even should the ALAC be indeed be a clique it cannot choose its own favourite as a Director; the vote is only between candidates selected by the ALS-appointed ABSC. Besides, those elected to represent the regions within ALAC have the confidence of their ALSs to make policy and recommendations on every aspect of ICANN throughout the year. Why are they suddenly to be distrusted for this one event? - Evan
participants (2)
-
Evan Leibovitch -
Patrick Vande Walle