Wendy Seltzer ha scritto:
My proposal:
After the RALO recommends for or against approval of an ALS candidate, the RALO's recommendation shall be followed on a no objections basis: namely, if no ALAC member raises an objection, the RALO's recommendation shall be followed. If any objections are raised, a vote of [2/3 majority among all of the members of the ALAC who cast a vote, provided at least nine members of the ALAC cast a vote] shall be required to overrule the RALO's recommendation.
I support this recommendation. I would just add a safeguard clause in case that the RALO does not provide a recommendation by a certain deadline, otherwise we might just be moving the timing problem from the ALAC to RALOs. So, I think that there should be a certain timeframe past which, if the RALO has not approved a recommendation, nor any of its members has raised objections at the regional level, the application should be forwarded to the ALAC without a default situation, and be decided upon by majority. If no recommendation has been made by the RALO but objections have been raised, the RALO can have some more time to deepen the analysis and reach a conclusion. I also note that the fact that the ALAC has the opportunity to overrule the RALO recommendation is an important check against a theoretical situation in which the RALO is captured by a group that starts to allow friends in and reject other newcomers (which is what unfortunately happened in some GNSO constituencies). So I would also support Wendy's proposal to change 2/3 into simple majority. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------