Re: [ALAC] Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure
At 08/10/2018 07:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Alan,
Find below a few comments on the RoP and the mail guideline:
Comments on RoP 11.45 - One needs to be careful with automatically considering all members present via email as it depends on the notice period provided.
Agreed. As a fail-safe action, under 12.1.5, an ALAC Member can request that a formal vote be taken instead of the consensus call.
11.10 - I think it needs to be clear whether all ALT meetings are open to observers or just literately open
This is the exact wording used for ALAC meetings. If Since these meetings are less formal than ALAC meetings I didn't think the additional rules listed in 11.5.2-11.5.4 were needed, but they could be added (or a reference to them).
17.16 - Which of the "or" does the "whichever comes first" apply to? i assume its the former, if yes then i think that may need rewording to clearly state that.
Will clarify.
17.2.1 - Am not sure why the added statement is necessary, has there been a scenario where a candidate that had the majority wasn't declared winner?
Perhaps not necessary but clarifies that this rule take precedence over 17.2.4. And it doesn't hurt.
17.2.4.2 - I think options should read "If the drop WILL result in...." I the current text suggest that drop should happen anyway. Secondly i assume you are asking we indicate which option is preferred, if yes i will prefer option B
Noted.
19.9.1 - Edits suggests that all RALO must agree that BCEC erred, was that the intention? I think that may be very difficult to achieve especially in a highly tense political setup.(am not saying we have that now, but the RoP is to be future proof)
The intent is that for a person to be added to the ballot, three RALOs must each feel strongly that the BCEC erred. The BCEC is made up of people selected by the RALOs and in the view of the group that agreed on this process, it should be a high bar to tell the BCEC that it erred. If we do not as a matter of course, trust the BCEC to do its deliberations carefully, why do we bother with the process at all?
19.11.8 - I like the inclusion but i believe the interpretation of abstain needs to be reviewed. That someone abstain should not imply a No as we currently practice. It should simply mean the person does not care hence should not be counted in the total valid votes but should be part of total cast.
The current rules are very clear about what the winning condition is (50% of votes cast) so I don't feel comfortable changing those words. A change could certainly be possible in the future. For the moment, we should focus on saying there should be an Abstain, or not (once can always not vote).
23.1/2 - Are you suggesting we put that phrase or just doing an explanation? if the former i don't think its necessary. I think just 23.3 is sufficient.
It would be bad form to have a 23.3 and no 23.1/23.2. People then do not know if there is an error or not. And we have (so far) tried to never renumber a section, although some day we may need to. We could simply say "Omitted" but this is clearer for this revision.
24 - Similar comment as 23 hence 24.3 should be sufficient
Comments on RoP - Email guide ALAC (bullet 6) - By ALT's recommendation, does it mean ALAC would consider for approval or that ALT is recommending for implementation. I think it should be decision of ALAC.
My intent was to make this automatic unless the ALAC over-rode (ie notification but not needing approval) to reduce the number of rubber-stamp ALAC decisions. And it had been universally accepted as a good thing (so far). If it needs a formal ALAC decision, it is already covered under the last bullet.
ALAC (bullet 8,9) - Am not sure who periodic affirmation mean, can you clarify your intention? Is it just to check with the individual if they still like to remain subscribed? if yes then i think there should be a definite period for that.
The theory when we wrote this was that annually we would ask. But the list of such people is long and doing it annually would be a big chore (and in practice we do not get around to it. Thus the suggested change. It is rare that someone has asked to be taken off (and they always could at any time), so the impact is minimal.
ALAC-Internal (bullet 3) - I honestly feel the ALAC list is too large and i don't think bullet point 3 should be included as i don't see the added value. At best i think only the liasons should be included
This is no change from the current practice - it just uses a new term not defined at the time this document was originally written and moves some from the last bullet to the third. The only current advisors who are not Liaisons are past ALAC Chairs.
ALAC-ExCom (bullet 3) - Same comment as internal
ALAC-Announce - Subscription method phrase changed to "see members" i think it also needs to be clear if its staff subscrbed or not.
There is no change here. It is a reference to the above section where it says that Staff subscribes formal reps and anyone else may self-subscribe.
AFRI-DISCUSS (bullet 3) - Lets include individual members as well. Comment applicable to other RALO lists
well, they may already be self-subscribed, but I agree they need to be mentioned. For all RALOs.
Line 34 - Is it referring to communication on the list or the information of the mailman itself?
Communications on the list. Alan
Regards
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:46 PM Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote: As I am about to relinquish the honor of being the Chair of the ALAC, I would like to leave things in reasonable order. There are a number of overdue changes needed to the Rules of Procedure (RoP) and associated documents.
To summarize, our overall rule set includes:
Rules of Procedure: We have a backlog of correction, clarifications and changes to address issues that have arisen or to bring the RoP in line with current practices.
Adjunct Document 01: "Position Description for ALAC Members, Liaisons and Appointees" I expect to be considered by the ARIWG in relation to Issue 16 (Metrics)
Adjunct Document 02: "Metrics and Remedial Actions for ALAC Members and Appointees" was never written but to the extent it is needed, it should also be considered in relation to Issue 16.
Adjunct Document 03: "At-Large Board Member Selection Implementation" should not need any immediate attention. The Selection process was referenced in the Review (Issue 6) but our proposal that was accepted by the Board disagreed with the Review Team and said that we will not address it in the Review Implementation. We may of course re-open that discussion at any point in the future if changes is needed.
Adjunct Document 04: "At-Large Structure Framework" will no doubt be reviewed and likely changed as part of addressing Review Issue 2 (ALS and Individual Membership).
ALAC E-mail Guide: There are a number of corrections and changes needed to being the document in line with current ALAC practice (and reduce routine work).
Accordingly I am proposing a set of changes to the ALAC Rules of Procedure and the ALAC E-mail Guide. The RoP call for at least 21 calendar days notice and and this message will allow us to vote on the amendments at the Wrap-Up Session in Barcelona. There will also be time allocated for discussion in Barcelona, but hopefully any need for change can be brought up and resolved via e-mail prior to travel.
I will do a very brief overview of the changes on the ALAC call later today, and we can have a dedicated call if people wish.
Attached is the redline revision of the RoP as well as a Change Log explaining each of the changes.
Also attached is the redline E-mail Guide. All of the changes are either clear corrections or changes to reflect current practice (such as including the any ALT Advisor in the ALT or ALAC lists, and including key working group chairs in the ALAC list).
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: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> <mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 10:18 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
At 08/10/2018 07:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Hello Alan,
Find below a few comments on the RoP and the mail guideline:
*Comments on RoP* 11.45 - One needs to be careful with automatically considering all members present via email as it depends on the notice period provided.
Agreed. As a fail-safe action, under 12.1.5, an ALAC Member can request that a formal vote be taken instead of the consensus call.
SO: Yes but this will be after the fact but its okay.
17.2.1 - Am not sure why the added statement is necessary, has there been a scenario where a candidate that had the majority wasn't declared winner?
Perhaps not necessary but clarifies that this rule take precedence over 17.2.4. And it doesn't hurt.
SO: None of the 2 situations in 17.2.4 are applicable to 17.2.1 so i don't think it clarifies a precedence.
19.9.1 - Edits suggests that all RALO must agree that BCEC erred, was that the intention? I think that may be very difficult to achieve especially in a highly tense political setup.(am not saying we have that now, but the RoP is to be future proof)
The intent is that for a person to be added to the ballot, three RALOs must each feel strongly that the BCEC erred. The BCEC is made up of people selected by the RALOs and in the view of the group that agreed on this process, it should be a high bar to tell the BCEC that it erred. If we do not as a matter of course, trust the BCEC to do its deliberations carefully, why do we bother with the process at all?
SO: I was one of the last BSMPC or is it BCEC and remember that recommendation and i agree with 3 RALOs, but the current wording suggests all RALOs must have to support the petition from a particular RALO.
19.11.8 - I like the inclusion but i believe the interpretation of abstain needs to be reviewed. That someone abstain should not imply a No as we currently practice. It should simply mean the person does not care hence should not be counted in the total valid votes but should be part of total cast.
The current rules are very clear about what the winning condition is (50% of votes cast) so I don't feel comfortable changing those words. A change could certainly be possible in the future. For the moment, we should focus on saying there should be an Abstain, or not (once can always not vote).
SO: Well Abstain in this case has weighting hence i don't think it can only be a matter of having it or not, but if that is what you like us to focus on then I prefer we do not include abstain then.
23.1/2 - Are you suggesting we put that phrase or just doing an explanation? if the former i don't think its necessary. I think just 23.3 is sufficient.
It would be bad form to have a 23.3 and no 23.1/23.2. People then do not know if there is an error or not. And we have (so far) tried to never renumber a section, although some day we may need to. We could simply say "Omitted" but this is clearer for this revision.
SO: Am unsure why 23.3 cannot then be renumbered to 23.1 since the previous texts(23.1&2) are no longer applicable.
24 - Similar comment as 23 hence 24.3 should be sufficient
*Comments on RoP - Email guide* ALAC (bullet 6) - By ALT's recommendation, does it mean ALAC would consider for approval or that ALT is recommending for implementation. I think it should be decision of ALAC.
My intent was to make this automatic unless the ALAC over-rode (ie notification but not needing approval) to reduce the number of rubber-stamp ALAC decisions. And it had been universally accepted as a good thing (so far). If it needs a formal ALAC decision, it is already covered under the last bullet.
SO: Well am not sure about the universality but we do say ALT is not a decision making group, i think doing what you suggest would not be playing justice to that. Secondly this is an ALAC list, we are talking about hence it seem to be appropriate that ALAC approves such additions.
ALAC (bullet 8,9) - Am not sure who periodic affirmation mean, can you clarify your intention? Is it just to check with the individual if they still like to remain subscribed? if yes then i think there should be a definite period for that.
The theory when we wrote this was that annually we would ask. But the list of such people is long and doing it annually would be a big chore (and in practice we do not get around to it. Thus the suggested change. It is rare that someone has asked to be taken off (and they always could at any time), so the impact is minimal.
SO: Okay actually changing from annually to periodic may give an impression of much more frequent check, if an annual check is cumbersome, its better this is stated to be done within every 2 years.
ALAC-Internal (bullet 3) - I honestly feel the ALAC list is too large and i don't think bullet point 3 should be included as i don't see the added value. At best i think only the liasons should be included
This is no change from the current practice - it just uses a new term not defined at the time this document was originally written and moves some from the last bullet to the third. The only current advisors who are not Liaisons are past ALAC Chairs.
SO: Hmm....lets just say the current practice of growing the ALAC internal list is what I was also indirectly commenting on; I feel that including the entire 3.5(particularly 3.5.3 and 3.5.5) as members of internal-list is un-necessary and perhaps defeats the internal nature of it.
Line 34 - Is it referring to communication on the list or the information of the mailman itself?
Communications on the list.
SO: Okay kindly include that word communication somewhere in the sentence Cheers!
Alan
Regards
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:46 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > wrote: As I am about to relinquish the honor of being the Chair of the ALAC, I would like to leave things in reasonable order. There are a number of overdue changes needed to the Rules of Procedure (RoP) and associated documents.
To summarize, our overall rule set includes:
Rules of Procedure: We have a backlog of correction, clarifications and changes to address issues that have arisen or to bring the RoP in line with current practices.
Adjunct Document 01: "Position Description for ALAC Members, Liaisons and Appointees" I expect to be considered by the ARIWG in relation to Issue 16 (Metrics)
Adjunct Document 02: "Metrics and Remedial Actions for ALAC Members and Appointees" was never written but to the extent it is needed, it should also be considered in relation to Issue 16.
Adjunct Document 03: "At-Large Board Member Selection Implementation" should not need any immediate attention. The Selection process was referenced in the Review (Issue 6) but our proposal that was accepted by the Board disagreed with the Review Team and said that we will not address it in the Review Implementation. We may of course re-open that discussion at any point in the future if changes is needed.
Adjunct Document 04: "At-Large Structure Framework" will no doubt be reviewed and likely changed as part of addressing Review Issue 2 (ALS and Individual Membership).
ALAC E-mail Guide: There are a number of corrections and changes needed to being the document in line with current ALAC practice (and reduce routine work).
Accordingly I am proposing a set of changes to the ALAC Rules of Procedure and the ALAC E-mail Guide. The RoP call for at least 21 calendar days notice and and this message will allow us to vote on the amendments at the Wrap-Up Session in Barcelona. There will also be time allocated for discussion in Barcelona, but hopefully any need for change can be brought up and resolved via e-mail prior to travel.
I will do a very brief overview of the changes on the ALAC call later today, and we can have a dedicated call if people wish.
Attached is the redline revision of the RoP as well as a Change Log explaining each of the changes.
Also attached is the redline E-mail Guide. All of the changes are either clear corrections or changes to reflect current practice (such as including the any ALT Advisor in the ALT or ALAC lists, and including key working group chairs in the ALAC list).
Alan
_______________________________________________ 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...)
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 <http://??> alt email: <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Dear Seun, Alan, On 10/10/2018 14:11, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
19.9.1 - Edits suggests that all RALO must agree that BCEC erred, was that the intention? I think that may be very difficult to achieve especially in a highly tense political setup.(am not saying we have that now, but the RoP is to be future proof)
The intent is that for a person to be added to the ballot, three RALOs must each feel strongly that the BCEC erred. The BCEC is made up of people selected by the RALOs and in the view of the group that agreed on this process, it should be a high bar to tell the BCEC that it erred. If we do not as a matter of course, trust the BCEC to do its deliberations carefully, why do we bother with the process at all?
SO: I was one of the last BSMPC or is it BCEC and remember that recommendation and i agree with 3 RALOs, but the current wording suggests all RALOs must have to support the petition from a particular RALO.
The number of supporting RALOs is given in 19.9.3 but I agree that there is some potential for ambiguity/confusion in 19.9.1. May I suggest: 19.9.1 Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if RALOs believe that the BCEC did not make a good decision in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations within a RALO, and outreach between RALOs so that those RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similar interest in the additional candidate(s). Best, Olivier
Hi Olivier Yes I support these changes Best Judith Sent from my iPhone Judith@jhellerstein.com Skype ID:Judithhellerstein
On Oct 10, 2018, at 12:34 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Seun, Alan,
On 10/10/2018 14:11, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
19.9.1 - Edits suggests that all RALO must agree that BCEC erred, was that the intention? I think that may be very difficult to achieve especially in a highly tense political setup.(am not saying we have that now, but the RoP is to be future proof)
The intent is that for a person to be added to the ballot, three RALOs must each feel strongly that the BCEC erred. The BCEC is made up of people selected by the RALOs and in the view of the group that agreed on this process, it should be a high bar to tell the BCEC that it erred. If we do not as a matter of course, trust the BCEC to do its deliberations carefully, why do we bother with the process at all?
SO: I was one of the last BSMPC or is it BCEC and remember that recommendation and i agree with 3 RALOs, but the current wording suggests all RALOs must have to support the petition from a particular RALO.
The number of supporting RALOs is given in 19.9.3 but I agree that there is some potential for ambiguity/confusion in 19.9.1. May I suggest: 19.9.1 Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if RALOs believe that the BCEC did not make a good decision in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations within a RALO, and outreach between RALOs so that those RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similar interest in the additional candidate(s).
Best,
Olivier _______________________________________________ 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...)
Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Wed, 10 Oct 2018, 17:34 Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Seun, Alan,
On 10/10/2018 14:11, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
19.9.1 - Edits suggests that all RALO must agree that BCEC erred, was that
the intention? I think that may be very difficult to achieve especially in a highly tense political setup.(am not saying we have that now, but the RoP is to be future proof)
The intent is that for a person to be added to the ballot, three RALOs must each feel strongly that the BCEC erred. The BCEC is made up of people selected by the RALOs and in the view of the group that agreed on this process, it should be a high bar to tell the BCEC that it erred. If we do not as a matter of course, trust the BCEC to do its deliberations carefully, why do we bother with the process at all?
SO: I was one of the last BSMPC or is it BCEC and remember that recommendation and i agree with 3 RALOs, but the current wording suggests all RALOs must have to support the petition from a particular RALO.
The number of supporting RALOs is given in 19.9.3
SO: Cool, didn't see that part. Thanks. but I agree that there is some potential for ambiguity/confusion in 19.9.1.
May I suggest: 19.9.1 Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if RALOs believe that the BCEC did not make a good decision in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations within a RALO, and outreach between RALOs so that those RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similar interest in the additional candidate(s)
Best,
Olivier
Olivier, To be clear, you made several changes from the proposed text, some you highlighted in red and others were just slipped in. Can you confirm if all were intentional? a) replace "each RALO" with "RALOs" (not noted in red) b) replaced "erred" with "did not make a good decsision" c) removed the word "compelling" (not noted in red) c) added (s) to match the plural case earlier in the sentence. a) the "each" was added to make it clear that each RALO needed to make an independent decision. But I agree it is awkward wording since it flips between talking about a single RALO and all RALOs. That needs fixing. b) I don't really see the difference between the two, but don't care much either c) again the reason that this paragraph was being adjust was to convey just this part. That the RALO feels STRONGLY that the candidate must be added back, not just is willing to live with it. d) good catch. Alan At 10/10/2018 12:34 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Seun, Alan,
On 10/10/2018 14:11, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
19.9.1 - Edits suggests that all RALO must agree that BCEC erred, was that the intention? I think that may be very difficult to achieve especially in a highly tense political setup.(am not saying we have that now, but the RoP is to be future proof) The intent is that for a person to be added to the ballot, three RALOs must each feel strongly that the BCEC erred. The BCEC is made up of people selected by the RALOs and in the view of the group that agreed on this process, it should be a high bar to tell the BCEC that it erred. If we do not as a matter of course, trust the BCEC to do its deliberations carefully, why do we bother with the process at all?
SO: I was one of the last BSMPC or is it BCEC and remember that recommendation and i agree with 3 RALOs, but the current wording suggests all RALOs must have to support the petition from a particular RALO.
The number of supporting RALOs is given in 19.9.3 but I agree that there is some potential for ambiguity/confusion in 19.9.1. May I suggest: 19.9.1 Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if RALOs believe that the BCEC did not make a good decision in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations within a RALO, and outreach between RALOs so that those RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similar interest in the additional candidate(s).
Best,
Olivier
Alan and all, I went through the RoP review proposed by Alan, and I accept most of them except 2: 19.9.1: I find the language confusing. I propose the following in stead: Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if a RALO believes that the BCEC erred in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations and outreach both within each RALO and Between all RALOs so that the other RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similarly compelling interest in the additional candidate. This is for clarity Also, I have a concern about each RALO using whatever methodology they choose to decide whether they have interest in the additional candidate. We have today an experience of 3 selections (2010, 2014, 2017) and I chaired the BMSPC for 2 of them. I recommend that all actions related to the Board member selection by At-Large be done trough a common set of rules for all the RALOs including those related to the petition. This is because we need the whole RALO members decide whether they have interest in the additional candidate, not the RALO Chair nor its leadership team. This rules must be very well detailed so that there is no room for interpretation. 19.11.8: I don’t know why no abstain option should be for the very first round of vote. Suppose there are 5 candidates and I don’t believe that any of them can be a good for this position. How shall I do? If I accept the proposal of Alan, I should either not vote or vote for someone who I believe is not a good one. By the way, I had a long discussion with Alan about including the 2017 BMSPC recommendations in the RoP, and Alan think that such modifications of the RoP need more discussion to be accepted by the At-Large members and then included in the RoP. I accepted his opinion and look forward to this discussion and the related RoP modifications before we start the next board member selection process in 2020. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 11 oct. 2018 à 00:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
Olivier,
To be clear, you made several changes from the proposed text, some you highlighted in red and others were just slipped in. Can you confirm if all were intentional?
a) replace "each RALO" with "RALOs" (not noted in red) b) replaced "erred" with "did not make a good decsision" c) removed the word "compelling" (not noted in red) c) added (s) to match the plural case earlier in the sentence.
a) the "each" was added to make it clear that each RALO needed to make an independent decision. But I agree it is awkward wording since it flips between talking about a single RALO and all RALOs. That needs fixing. b) I don't really see the difference between the two, but don't care much either c) again the reason that this paragraph was being adjust was to convey just this part. That the RALO feels STRONGLY that the candidate must be added back, not just is willing to live with it. d) good catch.
Alan
At 10/10/2018 12:34 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Seun, Alan,
On 10/10/2018 14:11, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
19.9.1 - Edits suggests that all RALO must agree that BCEC erred, was that the intention? I think that may be very difficult to achieve especially in a highly tense political setup.(am not saying we have that now, but the RoP is to be future proof) The intent is that for a person to be added to the ballot, three RALOs must each feel strongly that the BCEC erred. The BCEC is made up of people selected by the RALOs and in the view of the group that agreed on this process, it should be a high bar to tell the BCEC that it erred. If we do not as a matter of course, trust the BCEC to do its deliberations carefully, why do we bother with the process at all?
SO: I was one of the last BSMPC or is it BCEC and remember that recommendation and i agree with 3 RALOs, but the current wording suggests all RALOs must have to support the petition from a particular RALO.
The number of supporting RALOs is given in 19.9.3 but I agree that there is some potential for ambiguity/confusion in 19.9.1. May I suggest: 19.9.1 Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if RALOs believe that the BCEC did not make a good decision in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations within a RALO, and outreach between RALOs so that those RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similar interest in the additional candidate(s).
Best,
Olivier
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...)
At 11/10/2018 08:09 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
Alan and all,
I went through the RoP review proposed by Alan, and I accept most of them except 2:
19.9.1: I find the language confusing. I propose the following in stead: Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if a RALO believes that the BCEC erred in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations and outreach both within each RALO and Between all RALOs so that the other RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similarly compelling interest in the additional candidate. This is for clarity
I will reword the section in light of all of the comments that have been made.
Also, I have a concern about each RALO using whatever methodology they choose to decide whether they have interest in the additional candidate. We have today an experience of 3 selections (2010, 2014, 2017) and I chaired the BMSPC for 2 of them. I recommend that all actions related to the Board member selection by At-Large be done trough a common set of rules for all the RALOs including those related to the petition. This is because we need the whole RALO members decide whether they have interest in the additional candidate, not the RALO Chair nor its leadership team. This rules must be very well detailed so that there is no room for interpretation.
The decision that the ALAC RoP require RALOs to follow specific processes is well beyond a set of changes that are clean-up and clarification. We currently have no such rules and imposing them would need to be a well-debated community decision.
19.11.8: I dont know why no abstain option should be for the very first round of vote. Suppose there are 5 candidates and I dont believe that any of them can be a good for this position. How shall I do? If I accept the proposal of Alan, I should either not vote or vote for someone who I believe is not a good one.
The reason is that a Single Transferable Vote (STV) asked that the elector order all of the candidates (ie says who they prefer 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc). There is way to include an abstain option because if it is there, it will be treated as a nth candidate. If we were building out own voting system, we could have an over-riding abstain that says you will not order any of the candidates, but that option is not part of BigPulse (or any voting system I am aware of). So a decision not to vote is the only option I can see in this case.
By the way, I had a long discussion with Alan about including the 2017 BMSPC recommendations in the RoP, and Alan think that such modifications of the RoP need more discussion to be accepted by the At-Large members and then included in the RoP. I accepted his opinion and look forward to this discussion and the related RoP modifications before we start the next board member selection process in 2020.
Thanks Tijani. There are no doubt parts of our RoP that some feel should be revised and if the ALAC decides that this is a productive use of its communal time, then such a discussion should be held. I do question whether the need for some changes is compelling enough to warrant it being high on the ALAC priority list, but that is a decision for the next ALAC. Alan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 11 oct. 2018 à 00:42, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
Olivier,
To be clear, you made several changes from the proposed text, some you highlighted in red and others were just slipped in. Can you confirm if all were intentional?
a) replace "each RALO" with "RALOs" (not noted in red) b) replaced "erred" with "did not make a good decsision" c) removed the word "compelling" (not noted in red) c) added (s) to match the plural case earlier in the sentence.
a) the "each" was added to make it clear that each RALO needed to make an independent decision. But I agree it is awkward wording since it flips between talking about a single RALO and all RALOs. That needs fixing. b) I don't really see the difference between the two, but don't care much either c) again the reason that this paragraph was being adjust was to convey just this part. That the RALO feels STRONGLY that the candidate must be added back, not just is willing to live with it. d) good catch.
Alan
At 10/10/2018 12:34 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Seun, Alan,
On 10/10/2018 14:11, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
19.9.1 - Edits suggests that all RALO must agree that BCEC erred, was that the intention? I think that may be very difficult to achieve especially in a highly tense political setup.(am not saying we have that now, but the RoP is to be future proof) The intent is that for a person to be added to the ballot, three RALOs must each feel strongly that the BCEC erred. The BCEC is made up of people selected by the RALOs and in the view of the group that agreed on this process, it should be a high bar to tell the BCEC that it erred. If we do not as a matter of course, trust the BCEC to do its deliberations carefully, why do we bother with the process at all?
SO: I was one of the last BSMPC or is it BCEC and remember that recommendation and i agree with 3 RALOs, but the current wording suggests all RALOs must have to support the petition from a particular RALO.
The number of supporting RALOs is given in 19.9.3 but I agree that there is some potential for ambiguity/confusion in 19.9.1. May I suggest: 19.9.1 Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if RALOs believe that the BCEC did not make a good decision in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations within a RALO, and outreach between RALOs so that those RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similar interest in the additional candidate(s).
Best,
Olivier
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 ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
I think Tijani is onto something regarding normalizing how RALOs may add a Board candidate to the list. However I caution against an approach that bakes it in the RoP a clause for a uniform procedure incumbent on all RALOs. This could be seen as a route to manufacture consent. And in my view, the process should impose administrative rules discouraging this kind of activity. Mute by malice or not, silence sometimes speak louder than words. Maybe my RALO already has a candidate and for that reason, would not engage in handicapping. It would be upsetting to have a long formal process to declare interest/no interest when it is very clear my local RALO would rather sit on its hands than endorse such a candidate parachuted into the process from another region. As to the matter of individual membership, I think all that needs to happen at the ALAC RoP end is a recognition of standing for individual members and with it, a non-discrimination clause. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:10 AM Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> wrote:
Alan and all,
I went through the RoP review proposed by Alan, and I accept most of them except 2:
19.9.1: I find the language confusing. I propose the following in stead: Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if a RALO believes that the BCEC erred in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations and outreach both within each RALO and Between all RALOs so that the other RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similarly compelling interest in the additional candidate. This is for clarity Also, I have a concern about each RALO using whatever methodology they choose to decide whether they have interest in the additional candidate. We have today an experience of 3 selections (2010, 2014, 2017) and I chaired the BMSPC for 2 of them. I recommend that all actions related to the Board member selection by At-Large be done trough a common set of rules for all the RALOs including those related to the petition. This is because we need the whole RALO members decide whether they have interest in the additional candidate, not the RALO Chair nor its leadership team. This rules must be very well detailed so that there is no room for interpretation.
19.11.8: I don’t know why no abstain option should be for the very first round of vote. Suppose there are 5 candidates and I don’t believe that any of them can be a good for this position. How shall I do? If I accept the proposal of Alan, I should either not vote or vote for someone who I believe is not a good one.
By the way, I had a long discussion with Alan about including the 2017 BMSPC recommendations in the RoP, and Alan think that such modifications of the RoP need more discussion to be accepted by the At-Large members and then included in the RoP. I accepted his opinion and look forward to this discussion and the related RoP modifications before we start the next board member selection process in 2020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Tijani BEN JEMAA* Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 11 oct. 2018 à 00:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
Olivier,
To be clear, you made several changes from the proposed text, some you highlighted in red and others were just slipped in. Can you confirm if all were intentional?
a) replace "each RALO" with "RALOs" (not noted in red) b) replaced "erred" with "did not make a good decsision" c) removed the word "compelling" (not noted in red) c) added (s) to match the plural case earlier in the sentence.
a) the "each" was added to make it clear that each RALO needed to make an independent decision. But I agree it is awkward wording since it flips between talking about a single RALO and all RALOs. That needs fixing. b) I don't really see the difference between the two, but don't care much either c) again the reason that this paragraph was being adjust was to convey just this part. That the RALO feels STRONGLY that the candidate must be added back, not just is willing to live with it. d) good catch.
Alan
At 10/10/2018 12:34 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Seun, Alan,
On 10/10/2018 14:11, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
19.9.1 - Edits suggests that all RALO must agree that BCEC erred, was that the intention? I think that may be very difficult to achieve especially in a highly tense political setup.(am not saying we have that now, but the RoP is to be future proof)
The intent is that for a person to be added to the ballot, three RALOs must each feel strongly that the BCEC erred. The BCEC is made up of people selected by the RALOs and in the view of the group that agreed on this process, it should be a high bar to tell the BCEC that it erred. If we do not as a matter of course, trust the BCEC to do its deliberations carefully, why do we bother with the process at all?
SO: I was one of the last BSMPC or is it BCEC and remember that recommendation and i agree with 3 RALOs, but the current wording suggests all RALOs must have to support the petition from a particular RALO.
The number of supporting RALOs is given in 19.9.3 but I agree that there is some potential for ambiguity/confusion in 19.9.1. May I suggest: 19.9.1 Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if RALOs believe that the BCEC did not make a good decision in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations within a RALO, and outreach between RALOs so that those RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similar interest in the additional candidate(s).
Best,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
I guess such proposals to reenter into the pool any candidate that the BCEC had analyzed and decided to not select, is not a good practice. If each Ralo will decide to ask to reenter their candidate, each time, will be an infinite process. In my view, we shall agree that once the committee is settled and agreed, with representation from all Ralos, we shall also agree on accept the committee decision or for what we need a committee? Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 15:18 To: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> Cc: 'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure I think Tijani is onto something regarding normalizing how RALOs may add a Board candidate to the list. However I caution against an approach that bakes it in the RoP a clause for a uniform procedure incumbent on all RALOs. This could be seen as a route to manufacture consent. And in my view, the process should impose administrative rules discouraging this kind of activity. Mute by malice or not, silence sometimes speak louder than words. Maybe my RALO already has a candidate and for that reason, would not engage in handicapping. It would be upsetting to have a long formal process to declare interest/no interest when it is very clear my local RALO would rather sit on its hands than endorse such a candidate parachuted into the process from another region. As to the matter of individual membership, I think all that needs to happen at the ALAC RoP end is a recognition of standing for individual members and with it, a non-discrimination clause. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:10 AM Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>> wrote: Alan and all, I went through the RoP review proposed by Alan, and I accept most of them except 2: 19.9.1: I find the language confusing. I propose the following in stead: Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if a RALO believes that the BCEC erred in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations and outreach both within each RALO and Between all RALOs so that the other RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similarly compelling interest in the additional candidate. This is for clarity Also, I have a concern about each RALO using whatever methodology they choose to decide whether they have interest in the additional candidate. We have today an experience of 3 selections (2010, 2014, 2017) and I chaired the BMSPC for 2 of them. I recommend that all actions related to the Board member selection by At-Large be done trough a common set of rules for all the RALOs including those related to the petition. This is because we need the whole RALO members decide whether they have interest in the additional candidate, not the RALO Chair nor its leadership team. This rules must be very well detailed so that there is no room for interpretation. 19.11.8: I don’t know why no abstain option should be for the very first round of vote. Suppose there are 5 candidates and I don’t believe that any of them can be a good for this position. How shall I do? If I accept the proposal of Alan, I should either not vote or vote for someone who I believe is not a good one. By the way, I had a long discussion with Alan about including the 2017 BMSPC recommendations in the RoP, and Alan think that such modifications of the RoP need more discussion to be accepted by the At-Large members and then included in the RoP. I accepted his opinion and look forward to this discussion and the related RoP modifications before we start the next board member selection process in 2020. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Le 11 oct. 2018 à 00:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> a écrit : Olivier, To be clear, you made several changes from the proposed text, some you highlighted in red and others were just slipped in. Can you confirm if all were intentional? a) replace "each RALO" with "RALOs" (not noted in red) b) replaced "erred" with "did not make a good decsision" c) removed the word "compelling" (not noted in red) c) added (s) to match the plural case earlier in the sentence. a) the "each" was added to make it clear that each RALO needed to make an independent decision. But I agree it is awkward wording since it flips between talking about a single RALO and all RALOs. That needs fixing. b) I don't really see the difference between the two, but don't care much either c) again the reason that this paragraph was being adjust was to convey just this part. That the RALO feels STRONGLY that the candidate must be added back, not just is willing to live with it. d) good catch. Alan At 10/10/2018 12:34 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote: Dear Seun, Alan, On 10/10/2018 14:11, Seun Ojedeji wrote: 19.9.1 - Edits suggests that all RALO must agree that BCEC erred, was that the intention? I think that may be very difficult to achieve especially in a highly tense political setup.(am not saying we have that now, but the RoP is to be future proof) The intent is that for a person to be added to the ballot, three RALOs must each feel strongly that the BCEC erred. The BCEC is made up of people selected by the RALOs and in the view of the group that agreed on this process, it should be a high bar to tell the BCEC that it erred. If we do not as a matter of course, trust the BCEC to do its deliberations carefully, why do we bother with the process at all? SO: I was one of the last BSMPC or is it BCEC and remember that recommendation and i agree with 3 RALOs, but the current wording suggests all RALOs must have to support the petition from a particular RALO. The number of supporting RALOs is given in 19.9.3 but I agree that there is some potential for ambiguity/confusion in 19.9.1. May I suggest: 19.9.1 Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if RALOs believe that the BCEC did not make a good decision in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations within a RALO, and outreach between RALOs so that those RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similar interest in the additional candidate(s). Best, Olivier _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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...) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto: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...)
Big +1. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 4:29 PM Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> wrote:
I guess such proposals to reenter into the pool any candidate that the BCEC had analyzed and decided to not select, is not a good practice.
If each Ralo will decide to ask to reenter their candidate, each time, will be an infinite process.
In my view, we shall agree that once the committee is settled and agreed, with representation from all Ralos, we shall also agree on accept the committee decision or for what we need a committee?
*Vanda Scartezini*
*Polo Consultores Associados*
*Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004*
*01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil*
*Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253*
*Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 *
*Sorry for any typos. *
*From: *ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> *Date: *Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 15:18 *To: *Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> *Cc: *'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Subject: *Re: [ALAC] Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure
I think Tijani is onto something regarding normalizing how RALOs may add a Board candidate to the list. However I caution against an approach that bakes it in the RoP a clause for a uniform procedure incumbent on all RALOs.
This could be seen as a route to manufacture consent. And in my view, the process should impose administrative rules discouraging this kind of activity.
Mute by malice or not, silence sometimes speak louder than words. Maybe my RALO already has a candidate and for that reason, would not engage in handicapping. It would be upsetting to have a long formal process to declare interest/no interest when it is very clear my local RALO would rather sit on its hands than endorse such a candidate parachuted into the process from another region.
As to the matter of individual membership, I think all that needs to happen at the ALAC RoP end is a recognition of standing for individual members and with it, a non-discrimination clause.
-Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:10 AM Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> wrote:
Alan and all,
I went through the RoP review proposed by Alan, and I accept most of them except 2:
19.9.1: I find the language confusing. I propose the following in stead:
Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if a RALO believes that the BCEC erred in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations and outreach both within each RALO and Between all RALOs so that the other RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similarly compelling interest in the additional candidate.
This is for clarity
Also, I have a concern about each RALO using whatever methodology they choose to decide whether they have interest in the additional candidate. We have today an experience of 3 selections (2010, 2014, 2017) and I chaired the BMSPC for 2 of them. I recommend that all actions related to the Board member selection by At-Large be done trough a common set of rules for all the RALOs including those related to the petition. This is because we need the whole RALO members decide whether they have interest in the additional candidate, not the RALO Chair nor its leadership team. This rules must be very well detailed so that there is no room for interpretation.
19.11.8: I don’t know why no abstain option should be for the very first round of vote. Suppose there are 5 candidates and I don’t believe that any of them can be a good for this position. How shall I do? If I accept the proposal of Alan, I should either not vote or vote for someone who I believe is not a good one.
By the way, I had a long discussion with Alan about including the 2017 BMSPC recommendations in the RoP, and Alan think that such modifications of the RoP need more discussion to be accepted by the At-Large members and then included in the RoP. I accepted his opinion and look forward to this discussion and the related RoP modifications before we start the next board member selection process in 2020.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Tijani BEN JEMAA*
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
Phone: +216 98 330 114
+216 52 385 114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 11 oct. 2018 à 00:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
Olivier,
To be clear, you made several changes from the proposed text, some you highlighted in red and others were just slipped in. Can you confirm if all were intentional?
a) replace "each RALO" with "RALOs" (not noted in red) b) replaced "erred" with "did not make a good decsision" c) removed the word "compelling" (not noted in red) c) added (s) to match the plural case earlier in the sentence.
a) the "each" was added to make it clear that each RALO needed to make an independent decision. But I agree it is awkward wording since it flips between talking about a single RALO and all RALOs. That needs fixing. b) I don't really see the difference between the two, but don't care much either c) again the reason that this paragraph was being adjust was to convey just this part. That the RALO feels STRONGLY that the candidate must be added back, not just is willing to live with it. d) good catch.
Alan
At 10/10/2018 12:34 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Seun, Alan,
On 10/10/2018 14:11, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
19.9.1 - Edits suggests that all RALO must agree that BCEC erred, was that the intention? I think that may be very difficult to achieve especially in a highly tense political setup.(am not saying we have that now, but the RoP is to be future proof)
The intent is that for a person to be added to the ballot, three RALOs must each feel strongly that the BCEC erred. The BCEC is made up of people selected by the RALOs and in the view of the group that agreed on this process, it should be a high bar to tell the BCEC that it erred. If we do not as a matter of course, trust the BCEC to do its deliberations carefully, why do we bother with the process at all?
SO: I was one of the last BSMPC or is it BCEC and remember that recommendation and i agree with 3 RALOs, but the current wording suggests all RALOs must have to support the petition from a particular RALO.
The number of supporting RALOs is given in 19.9.3 but I agree that there is some potential for ambiguity/confusion in 19.9.1. May I suggest: 19.9.1 Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if RALOs believe that the BCEC did not make a good decision in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations within a RALO, and outreach between RALOs so that those RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similar interest in the additional candidate(s).
Best,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
I’m absolutely fine with removing the possibility of adding a dropped candidate. My problem is that the possibility is there and the way to address it is vague and give rooms for gaming. I was proposing to set clear and stable rules so that each case is treated equally. So, with possible addition of candidates or without, I’m strongly with absolutely clear and detailed rules that make the system very transparent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 11 oct. 2018 à 22:38, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> a écrit :
Big +1.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 4:29 PM Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org <mailto:vanda@scartezini.org>> wrote: I guess such proposals to reenter into the pool any candidate that the BCEC had analyzed and decided to not select, is not a good practice.
If each Ralo will decide to ask to reenter their candidate, each time, will be an infinite process.
In my view, we shall agree that once the committee is settled and agreed, with representation from all Ralos, we shall also agree on accept the committee decision or for what we need a committee?
Vanda Scartezini
Polo Consultores Associados
Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004
01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil
Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253
Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464
Sorry for any typos.
From: ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> Date: Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 15:18 To: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>> Cc: 'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure
I think Tijani is onto something regarding normalizing how RALOs may add a Board candidate to the list. However I caution against an approach that bakes it in the RoP a clause for a uniform procedure incumbent on all RALOs.
This could be seen as a route to manufacture consent. And in my view, the process should impose administrative rules discouraging this kind of activity.
Mute by malice or not, silence sometimes speak louder than words. Maybe my RALO already has a candidate and for that reason, would not engage in handicapping. It would be upsetting to have a long formal process to declare interest/no interest when it is very clear my local RALO would rather sit on its hands than endorse such a candidate parachuted into the process from another region.
As to the matter of individual membership, I think all that needs to happen at the ALAC RoP end is a recognition of standing for individual members and with it, a non-discrimination clause.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:10 AM Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>> wrote:
Alan and all,
I went through the RoP review proposed by Alan, and I accept most of them except 2:
19.9.1: I find the language confusing. I propose the following in stead:
Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if a RALO believes that the BCEC erred in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations and outreach both within each RALO and Between all RALOs so that the other RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similarly compelling interest in the additional candidate.
This is for clarity
Also, I have a concern about each RALO using whatever methodology they choose to decide whether they have interest in the additional candidate. We have today an experience of 3 selections (2010, 2014, 2017) and I chaired the BMSPC for 2 of them. I recommend that all actions related to the Board member selection by At-Large be done trough a common set of rules for all the RALOs including those related to the petition. This is because we need the whole RALO members decide whether they have interest in the additional candidate, not the RALO Chair nor its leadership team. This rules must be very well detailed so that there is no room for interpretation.
19.11.8: I don’t know why no abstain option should be for the very first round of vote. Suppose there are 5 candidates and I don’t believe that any of them can be a good for this position. How shall I do? If I accept the proposal of Alan, I should either not vote or vote for someone who I believe is not a good one.
By the way, I had a long discussion with Alan about including the 2017 BMSPC recommendations in the RoP, and Alan think that such modifications of the RoP need more discussion to be accepted by the At-Large members and then included in the RoP. I accepted his opinion and look forward to this discussion and the related RoP modifications before we start the next board member selection process in 2020.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tijani BEN JEMAA
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)
Phone: +216 98 330 114
+216 52 385 114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 11 oct. 2018 à 00:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> a écrit :
Olivier,
To be clear, you made several changes from the proposed text, some you highlighted in red and others were just slipped in. Can you confirm if all were intentional?
a) replace "each RALO" with "RALOs" (not noted in red) b) replaced "erred" with "did not make a good decsision" c) removed the word "compelling" (not noted in red) c) added (s) to match the plural case earlier in the sentence.
a) the "each" was added to make it clear that each RALO needed to make an independent decision. But I agree it is awkward wording since it flips between talking about a single RALO and all RALOs. That needs fixing. b) I don't really see the difference between the two, but don't care much either c) again the reason that this paragraph was being adjust was to convey just this part. That the RALO feels STRONGLY that the candidate must be added back, not just is willing to live with it. d) good catch.
Alan
At 10/10/2018 12:34 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Seun, Alan,
On 10/10/2018 14:11, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
19.9.1 - Edits suggests that all RALO must agree that BCEC erred, was that the intention? I think that may be very difficult to achieve especially in a highly tense political setup.(am not saying we have that now, but the RoP is to be future proof)
The intent is that for a person to be added to the ballot, three RALOs must each feel strongly that the BCEC erred. The BCEC is made up of people selected by the RALOs and in the view of the group that agreed on this process, it should be a high bar to tell the BCEC that it erred. If we do not as a matter of course, trust the BCEC to do its deliberations carefully, why do we bother with the process at all?
SO: I was one of the last BSMPC or is it BCEC and remember that recommendation and i agree with 3 RALOs, but the current wording suggests all RALOs must have to support the petition from a particular RALO.
The number of supporting RALOs is given in 19.9.3 but I agree that there is some potential for ambiguity/confusion in 19.9.1. May I suggest: 19.9.1 Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if RALOs believe that the BCEC did not make a good decision in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations within a RALO, and outreach between RALOs so that those RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similar interest in the additional candidate(s).
Best,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <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+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac <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+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...>
Agree ++1 On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 5:39 AM Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Big +1.
-Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 4:29 PM Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> wrote:
I guess such proposals to reenter into the pool any candidate that the BCEC had analyzed and decided to not select, is not a good practice.
If each Ralo will decide to ask to reenter their candidate, each time, will be an infinite process.
In my view, we shall agree that once the committee is settled and agreed, with representation from all Ralos, we shall also agree on accept the committee decision or for what we need a committee?
*Vanda Scartezini*
*Polo Consultores Associados*
*Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004*
*01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil*
*Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253*
*Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 *
*Sorry for any typos. *
*From: *ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> *Date: *Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 15:18 *To: *Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> *Cc: *'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Subject: *Re: [ALAC] Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure
I think Tijani is onto something regarding normalizing how RALOs may add a Board candidate to the list. However I caution against an approach that bakes it in the RoP a clause for a uniform procedure incumbent on all RALOs.
This could be seen as a route to manufacture consent. And in my view, the process should impose administrative rules discouraging this kind of activity.
Mute by malice or not, silence sometimes speak louder than words. Maybe my RALO already has a candidate and for that reason, would not engage in handicapping. It would be upsetting to have a long formal process to declare interest/no interest when it is very clear my local RALO would rather sit on its hands than endorse such a candidate parachuted into the process from another region.
As to the matter of individual membership, I think all that needs to happen at the ALAC RoP end is a recognition of standing for individual members and with it, a non-discrimination clause.
-Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:10 AM Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> wrote:
Alan and all,
I went through the RoP review proposed by Alan, and I accept most of them except 2:
19.9.1: I find the language confusing. I propose the following in stead:
Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if a RALO believes that the BCEC erred in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations and outreach both within each RALO and Between all RALOs so that the other RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similarly compelling interest in the additional candidate.
This is for clarity
Also, I have a concern about each RALO using whatever methodology they choose to decide whether they have interest in the additional candidate. We have today an experience of 3 selections (2010, 2014, 2017) and I chaired the BMSPC for 2 of them. I recommend that all actions related to the Board member selection by At-Large be done trough a common set of rules for all the RALOs including those related to the petition. This is because we need the whole RALO members decide whether they have interest in the additional candidate, not the RALO Chair nor its leadership team. This rules must be very well detailed so that there is no room for interpretation.
19.11.8: I don’t know why no abstain option should be for the very first round of vote. Suppose there are 5 candidates and I don’t believe that any of them can be a good for this position. How shall I do? If I accept the proposal of Alan, I should either not vote or vote for someone who I believe is not a good one.
By the way, I had a long discussion with Alan about including the 2017 BMSPC recommendations in the RoP, and Alan think that such modifications of the RoP need more discussion to be accepted by the At-Large members and then included in the RoP. I accepted his opinion and look forward to this discussion and the related RoP modifications before we start the next board member selection process in 2020.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Tijani BEN JEMAA*
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
Phone: +216 98 330 114
+216 52 385 114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 11 oct. 2018 à 00:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
Olivier,
To be clear, you made several changes from the proposed text, some you highlighted in red and others were just slipped in. Can you confirm if all were intentional?
a) replace "each RALO" with "RALOs" (not noted in red) b) replaced "erred" with "did not make a good decsision" c) removed the word "compelling" (not noted in red) c) added (s) to match the plural case earlier in the sentence.
a) the "each" was added to make it clear that each RALO needed to make an independent decision. But I agree it is awkward wording since it flips between talking about a single RALO and all RALOs. That needs fixing. b) I don't really see the difference between the two, but don't care much either c) again the reason that this paragraph was being adjust was to convey just this part. That the RALO feels STRONGLY that the candidate must be added back, not just is willing to live with it. d) good catch.
Alan
At 10/10/2018 12:34 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Seun, Alan,
On 10/10/2018 14:11, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
19.9.1 - Edits suggests that all RALO must agree that BCEC erred, was that the intention? I think that may be very difficult to achieve especially in a highly tense political setup.(am not saying we have that now, but the RoP is to be future proof)
The intent is that for a person to be added to the ballot, three RALOs must each feel strongly that the BCEC erred. The BCEC is made up of people selected by the RALOs and in the view of the group that agreed on this process, it should be a high bar to tell the BCEC that it erred. If we do not as a matter of course, trust the BCEC to do its deliberations carefully, why do we bother with the process at all?
SO: I was one of the last BSMPC or is it BCEC and remember that recommendation and i agree with 3 RALOs, but the current wording suggests all RALOs must have to support the petition from a particular RALO.
The number of supporting RALOs is given in 19.9.3 but I agree that there is some potential for ambiguity/confusion in 19.9.1. May I suggest: 19.9.1 Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if RALOs believe that the BCEC did not make a good decision in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations within a RALO, and outreach between RALOs so that those RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similar interest in the additional candidate(s).
Best,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Agree! On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:51 PM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Agree ++1
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 5:39 AM Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:
Big +1.
-Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 4:29 PM Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> wrote:
I guess such proposals to reenter into the pool any candidate that the BCEC had analyzed and decided to not select, is not a good practice.
If each Ralo will decide to ask to reenter their candidate, each time, will be an infinite process.
In my view, we shall agree that once the committee is settled and agreed, with representation from all Ralos, we shall also agree on accept the committee decision or for what we need a committee?
*Vanda Scartezini*
*Polo Consultores Associados*
*Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004*
*01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil*
*Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253*
*Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 *
*Sorry for any typos. *
*From: *ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> *Date: *Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 15:18 *To: *Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> *Cc: *'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Subject: *Re: [ALAC] Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure
I think Tijani is onto something regarding normalizing how RALOs may add a Board candidate to the list. However I caution against an approach that bakes it in the RoP a clause for a uniform procedure incumbent on all RALOs.
This could be seen as a route to manufacture consent. And in my view, the process should impose administrative rules discouraging this kind of activity.
Mute by malice or not, silence sometimes speak louder than words. Maybe my RALO already has a candidate and for that reason, would not engage in handicapping. It would be upsetting to have a long formal process to declare interest/no interest when it is very clear my local RALO would rather sit on its hands than endorse such a candidate parachuted into the process from another region.
As to the matter of individual membership, I think all that needs to happen at the ALAC RoP end is a recognition of standing for individual members and with it, a non-discrimination clause.
-Carlton
============================== *Carlton A Samuels*
*Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:10 AM Tijani BEN JEMAA < tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> wrote:
Alan and all,
I went through the RoP review proposed by Alan, and I accept most of them except 2:
19.9.1: I find the language confusing. I propose the following in stead:
Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if a RALO believes that the BCEC erred in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations and outreach both within each RALO and Between all RALOs so that the other RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similarly compelling interest in the additional candidate.
This is for clarity
Also, I have a concern about each RALO using whatever methodology they choose to decide whether they have interest in the additional candidate. We have today an experience of 3 selections (2010, 2014, 2017) and I chaired the BMSPC for 2 of them. I recommend that all actions related to the Board member selection by At-Large be done trough a common set of rules for all the RALOs including those related to the petition. This is because we need the whole RALO members decide whether they have interest in the additional candidate, not the RALO Chair nor its leadership team. This rules must be very well detailed so that there is no room for interpretation.
19.11.8: I don’t know why no abstain option should be for the very first round of vote. Suppose there are 5 candidates and I don’t believe that any of them can be a good for this position. How shall I do? If I accept the proposal of Alan, I should either not vote or vote for someone who I believe is not a good one.
By the way, I had a long discussion with Alan about including the 2017 BMSPC recommendations in the RoP, and Alan think that such modifications of the RoP need more discussion to be accepted by the At-Large members and then included in the RoP. I accepted his opinion and look forward to this discussion and the related RoP modifications before we start the next board member selection process in 2020.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Tijani BEN JEMAA*
Executive Director
Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
Phone: +216 98 330 114
+216 52 385 114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 11 oct. 2018 à 00:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
Olivier,
To be clear, you made several changes from the proposed text, some you highlighted in red and others were just slipped in. Can you confirm if all were intentional?
a) replace "each RALO" with "RALOs" (not noted in red) b) replaced "erred" with "did not make a good decsision" c) removed the word "compelling" (not noted in red) c) added (s) to match the plural case earlier in the sentence.
a) the "each" was added to make it clear that each RALO needed to make an independent decision. But I agree it is awkward wording since it flips between talking about a single RALO and all RALOs. That needs fixing. b) I don't really see the difference between the two, but don't care much either c) again the reason that this paragraph was being adjust was to convey just this part. That the RALO feels STRONGLY that the candidate must be added back, not just is willing to live with it. d) good catch.
Alan
At 10/10/2018 12:34 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Seun, Alan,
On 10/10/2018 14:11, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
19.9.1 - Edits suggests that all RALO must agree that BCEC erred, was that the intention? I think that may be very difficult to achieve especially in a highly tense political setup.(am not saying we have that now, but the RoP is to be future proof)
The intent is that for a person to be added to the ballot, three RALOs must each feel strongly that the BCEC erred. The BCEC is made up of people selected by the RALOs and in the view of the group that agreed on this process, it should be a high bar to tell the BCEC that it erred. If we do not as a matter of course, trust the BCEC to do its deliberations carefully, why do we bother with the process at all?
SO: I was one of the last BSMPC or is it BCEC and remember that recommendation and i agree with 3 RALOs, but the current wording suggests all RALOs must have to support the petition from a particular RALO.
The number of supporting RALOs is given in 19.9.3 but I agree that there is some potential for ambiguity/confusion in 19.9.1. May I suggest: 19.9.1 Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if RALOs believe that the BCEC did not make a good decision in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations within a RALO, and outreach between RALOs so that those RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similar interest in the additional candidate(s).
Best,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
I would support not having this petition process but that is what the community decided and it stands until it is changed. If there is a will within the ALAC to change it, it is a simple RoP edit! ;-) That said, it is not an infinite process since if a RALO supports their own candidate and no other RALO supports that candidate, it does not succeed. Alan At 11/10/2018 05:29 PM, Vanda Scartezini wrote:
I guess such proposals to reenter into the pool any candidate that the BCEC had analyzed and decided to not select, is not a good practice. If each Ralo will decide to ask to reenter their candidate, each time, will be an infinite process. In my view, we shall agree that once the committee is settled and agreed, with representation from all Ralos, we shall also agree on accept the committee decision or for what we need a committee?
Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos.
From: ALAC <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> Date: Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 15:18 To: Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> Cc: 'ALAC List' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Motion to amend the ALAC Rules of Procedure
I think Tijani is onto something regarding normalizing how RALOs may add a Board candidate to the list. However I caution against an approach that bakes it in the RoP a clause for a uniform procedure incumbent on all RALOs.
This could be seen as a route to manufacture consent. And in my view, the process should impose administrative rules discouraging this kind of activity.
Mute by malice or not, silence sometimes speak louder than words. Maybe my RALO already has a candidate and for that reason, would not engage in handicapping. It would be upsetting to have a long formal process to declare interest/no interest when it is very clear my local RALO would rather sit on its hands than endorse such a candidate parachuted into the process from another region.
As to the matter of individual membership, I think all that needs to happen at the ALAC RoP end is a recognition of standing for individual members and with it, a non-discrimination clause.
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 7:10 AM Tijani BEN JEMAA <<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn>tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org.tn> wrote: Alan and all,
I went through the RoP review proposed by Alan, and I accept most of them except 2:
19.9.1: I find the language confusing. I propose the following in stead: Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if a RALO believes that the BCEC erred in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations and outreach both within each RALO and Between all RALOs so that the other RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similarly compelling interest in the additional candidate. This is for clarity Also, I have a concern about each RALO using whatever methodology they choose to decide whether they have interest in the additional candidate. We have today an experience of 3 selections (2010, 2014, 2017) and I chaired the BMSPC for 2 of them. I recommend that all actions related to the Board member selection by At-Large be done trough a common set of rules for all the RALOs including those related to the petition. This is because we need the whole RALO members decide whether they have interest in the additional candidate, not the RALO Chair nor its leadership team. This rules must be very well detailed so that there is no room for interpretation.
19.11.8: I donât know why no abstain option should be for the very first round of vote. Suppose there are 5 candidates and I donât believe that any of them can be a good for this position. How shall I do? If I accept the proposal of Alan, I should either not vote or vote for someone who I believe is not a good one.
By the way, I had a long discussion with Alan about including the 2017 BMSPC recommendations in the RoP, and Alan think that such modifications of the RoP need more discussion to be accepted by the At-Large members and then included in the RoP. I accepted his opinion and look forward to this discussion and the related RoP modifications before we start the next board member selection process in 2020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 11 oct. 2018 à 00:42, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> a écrit :
Olivier,
To be clear, you made several changes from the proposed text, some you highlighted in red and others were just slipped in. Can you confirm if all were intentional?
a) replace "each RALO" with "RALOs" (not noted in red) b) replaced "erred" with "did not make a good decsision" c) removed the word "compelling" (not noted in red) c) added (s) to match the plural case earlier in the sentence.
a) the "each" was added to make it clear that each RALO needed to make an independent decision. But I agree it is awkward wording since it flips between talking about a single RALO and all RALOs. That needs fixing. b) I don't really see the difference between the two, but don't care much either c) again the reason that this paragraph was being adjust was to convey just this part. That the RALO feels STRONGLY that the candidate must be added back, not just is willing to live with it. d) good catch.
Alan
At 10/10/2018 12:34 PM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Seun, Alan,
On 10/10/2018 14:11, Seun Ojedeji wrote: 19.9.1 - Edits suggests that all RALO must agree that BCEC erred, was that the intention? I think that may be very difficult to achieve especially in a highly tense political setup.(am not saying we have that now, but the RoP is to be future proof)
The intent is that for a person to be added to the ballot, three RALOs must each feel strongly that the BCEC erred. The BCEC is made up of people selected by the RALOs and in the view of the group that agreed on this process, it should be a high bar to tell the BCEC that it erred. If we do not as a matter of course, trust the BCEC to do its deliberations carefully, why do we bother with the process at all?
SO: I was one of the last BSMPC or is it BCEC and remember that recommendation and i agree with 3 RALOs, but the current wording suggests all RALOs must have to support the petition from a particular RALO.
The number of supporting RALOs is given in 19.9.3 but I agree that there is some potential for ambiguity/confusion in 19.9.1. May I suggest: 19.9.1 Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list if RALOs believe that the BCEC did not make a good decision in omitting a candidate. The timetable should allow for consultations within a RALO, and outreach between RALOs so that those RALOs may consider, using whatever methodology they choose, whether they have a similar interest in the additional candidate(s).
Best,
Olivier
_______________________________________________ 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)
_______________________________________________ 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)
participants (9)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Carlton Samuels -
Javier Rua -
Judith Hellerstein -
Maureen Hilyard -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
Seun Ojedeji -
Tijani BEN JEMAA -
Vanda Scartezini