All, attached is the revised draft for rules of procedure, incorporating what was agreed on today's call (and also some of Izumi's suggestions, which seemed non-controversial to me - mostly clarifications). I have also incorporated the minimum participation requirements taken verbatim from the Self Review, even if I had to adapt them a bit - in particularly, it said that members are expected to participate in all ALS accreditation vote, but it seemed odd to me to send someone away for missing just one vote. So I broke down the list into "qualitative" and "quantitative" requirements, specified that only the quantitative ones count in practice, and lowered the threshold to 3/4 of ALS votes. I am now asking for opinions on the two remaining open parts, so that hopefully we can reach consensus Here they are: ==> 1.g (new section) on criteria for officers - this is what I came up with as a first draft: ----- g. [Officers shall be freely chosen by the ALAC, according to the following criteria: They shall be persons who are current or former members of the ALAC, or are anyway familiar with the activities and functioning of the ALAC; They shall accept to serve on behalf of the ALAC by acting for the good of the entire Committee, working to bridge differences and build consensus, and, while acting in their capacity as ALAC officer, always putting the collective views of the Committee in front of their own.] ----- Suggestions welcome. ==> 6.d and 11.b, majorities necessary to recall officers and amend the rules - as agreed, here is a recap of different proposals: 1. Initial proposal 10 votes in favour. Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 10 must be in favour. If all vote, 10 must be in favour (66%). 2. Wendy's proposal Simple majority of those who vote, quorum of 2/3. Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 6 must be in favour. If all vote, 8 must be in favour. 3. Izumi's proposal 2/3 majority of those who vote, quorum of 2/3. Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 7 must be in favour. If all vote, 10 must be in favour. 4. A possible compromise? 2/3 majority of those who vote, quorum 2/3, *and* simple majority of the committee. Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 8 must be in favour. If all vote, 10 must be in favour. My opinion => The initial proposal purposedly makes it hard to do these two things, because changes to fundamental rules need to be broadly shared, and because a recall vote in the middle of a 1-year term is going to be highly controversial anyway. Personally I would like to see these things happen only when there is almost full consensus in the Committee, rather than running into the risk of them happening too often as an ordinary tool of internal "discussion". Also, I'd be afraid of a system that allows a minority of the Committee to take such a decision under any conditions - that's why I think that #4 might be an interesting compromise. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Hi, Bylaws suggest the name of the ALAC board liaison should be given to the Secretary at least one month prior to the AGM <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-9.2> I think you need to adjust your time line. Will you have a process for selecting ALAC delegates to the NomCom? It's been the NomCom's recent practice to hold its first meeting at the end of AGM of the previous year, i.e. the 2007 NomCom held its first meeting immediately after the 2006 AGM in Sao Paulo. The 2008 NomCom will probably meet after the 2007 AGM. It would be very helpful if ALAC could select 5 delegates (one from each region) in good time for them to be able to travel to the AGM. In the past we've suggested at least 6 weeks prior, this gives people time to get any necessary visas, and NomCom travels economy, try to give those that can time to upgrade. Thanks, Adam At 5:55 PM +0200 4/10/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
All,
attached is the revised draft for rules of procedure, incorporating what was agreed on today's call (and also some of Izumi's suggestions, which seemed non-controversial to me - mostly clarifications).
I have also incorporated the minimum participation requirements taken verbatim from the Self Review, even if I had to adapt them a bit - in particularly, it said that members are expected to participate in all ALS accreditation vote, but it seemed odd to me to send someone away for missing just one vote. So I broke down the list into "qualitative" and "quantitative" requirements, specified that only the quantitative ones count in practice, and lowered the threshold to 3/4 of ALS votes.
I am now asking for opinions on the two remaining open parts, so that hopefully we can reach consensus
Here they are:
==> 1.g (new section) on criteria for officers - this is what I came up with as a first draft:
----- g. [Officers shall be freely chosen by the ALAC, according to the following criteria:
They shall be persons who are current or former members of the ALAC, or are anyway familiar with the activities and functioning of the ALAC;
They shall accept to serve on behalf of the ALAC by acting for the good of the entire Committee, working to bridge differences and build consensus, and, while acting in their capacity as ALAC officer, always putting the collective views of the Committee in front of their own.] -----
Suggestions welcome.
==> 6.d and 11.b, majorities necessary to recall officers and amend the rules - as agreed, here is a recap of different proposals:
1. Initial proposal
10 votes in favour.
Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 10 must be in favour. If all vote, 10 must be in favour (66%).
2. Wendy's proposal
Simple majority of those who vote, quorum of 2/3.
Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 6 must be in favour. If all vote, 8 must be in favour.
3. Izumi's proposal
2/3 majority of those who vote, quorum of 2/3.
Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 7 must be in favour. If all vote, 10 must be in favour.
4. A possible compromise?
2/3 majority of those who vote, quorum 2/3, *and* simple majority of the committee.
Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 8 must be in favour. If all vote, 10 must be in favour.
My opinion => The initial proposal purposedly makes it hard to do these two things, because changes to fundamental rules need to be broadly shared, and because a recall vote in the middle of a 1-year term is going to be highly controversial anyway. Personally I would like to see these things happen only when there is almost full consensus in the Committee, rather than running into the risk of them happening too often as an ordinary tool of internal "discussion". Also, I'd be afraid of a system that allows a minority of the Committee to take such a decision under any conditions - that's why I think that #4 might be an interesting compromise.
Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:ALAC Rules of Proced#2B7C27.doc (WDBN/«IC») (002B7C27) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
Adam Peake ha scritto:
Hi,
Bylaws suggest the name of the ALAC board liaison should be given to the Secretary at least one month prior to the AGM <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#VI-9.2> I think you need to adjust your time line.
I know, but we discussed that and the Committee wanted to make all appointments at the same time during the AGM, rather than having to anticipate one of them by a month and have to do it online. We'll be asking the ICANN legal staff if that would be ok with them.
Will you have a process for selecting ALAC delegates to the NomCom?
We have one, but never formalized it. We might do, if the Committee wants. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
On 2007-04-11 10:30:39 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
I know, but we discussed that and the Committee wanted to make all appointments at the same time during the AGM, rather than having to anticipate one of them by a month and have to do it online. We'll be asking the ICANN legal staff if that would be ok with them.
The typical rhythm for appointments throughout ICANN is that they are effective at the end of the AGM and announced well in advance. Is there any useful reason at all (except for the committee's whim) to behave differently? Among other things, making the appointments prior to the AGM enables those who are appointed as liaisons to get a bit of learning time before the appointment becomes effective. I'd respectfully suggest that you stop wagging the dog with this. -- Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
Thomas Roessler ha scritto:
I'd respectfully suggest that you stop wagging the dog with this.
"Wagging the dog" implies that there is a bigger, hidden issue behind, so... what do you mean? Thanks, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
On 2007-04-11 16:47:14 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
I'd respectfully suggest that you stop wagging the dog with this.
"Wagging the dog" implies that there is a bigger, hidden issue behind, so... what do you mean?
The idea that the rest of the ICANN community should adopt its schedule to ALAC's whim. Having the appointments somewhat in synch is beneficial for all. (Resending with non-work address.)
I think that the matter is slightly more complex. We probably need to distinguish two cases: the election of the ALAC members and the election of ALAC officers. ALAC is the only AC that has the two levels, and it would not be completely out of order that this peculiarity be reflected in the election timeframe. I don't take a position in this debate, I don't know if it is best to do the elections before (Thomas) or during (Vittorio) the AGM, but I only want to point out that you probably want to have the officers elected by the incoming ALAC, not the expiring one. If this is the case, you need necessarily to separate the election of the ALAC members, keeping also in mind that 2 or 3 are coming out not from the regions but from the NomCom, that has its own schedule, from the election of the officers, that must be done when the new members have already taken their seat. For the Board, for instance, new members are known with sufficient advance notice to be able to travel to the AGM location, but the election of the officers (and the composition of the Board Committees) is done only after the new Board is empowered. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Roessler Sent: 11 April 2007 18:34 To: Vittorio Bertola Cc: alac@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Rules of procedure, draft 2
On 2007-04-11 16:47:14 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
I'd respectfully suggest that you stop wagging the dog with this.
"Wagging the dog" implies that there is a bigger, hidden issue behind, so... what do you mean?
The idea that the rest of the ICANN community should adopt its schedule to ALAC's whim. Having the appointments somewhat in synch is beneficial for all.
(Resending with non-work address.)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
Roberto Gaetano ha scritto:
I don't take a position in this debate, I don't know if it is best to do the elections before (Thomas) or during (Vittorio) the AGM, but I only want to point out that you probably want to have the officers elected by the incoming ALAC, not the expiring one. If this is the case, you need necessarily to separate the election of the ALAC members, keeping also in mind that 2 or 3 are coming out not from the regions but from the NomCom, that has its own schedule, from the election of the officers, that must be done when the new members have already taken their seat.
As it is written now, it is the current members that vote, but we could easily change that if we wanted, by moving the date of the vote to, say, no more than five days after the closure of the AGM. In practice, the outgoing Chair could fix the vote five minutes after the AGM is closed, while everyone is still there; which is what happens with the Board meeting at the AGM. Since that's what we agreed through the comments + no objection process, does anyone in the ALAC feel the need to change a) the above or b) the fact that we want to make all appointments at the AGM, as opposed to appointing the Board liaison one month before the other officers? Also, I'm still waiting for preferences on the majorities necessary for recalls and amendments. Personally I think that any of the two last compromise options (3. and 4. in the initial message of the thread) could be ok for everyone. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Sorry, rather late, but I miss the point of this debate. If ALAC's liaison to the Board is selected at AGM (or any other time for that matter), the old liaison can do the job for the following six weeks required(suggested) by the by laws while the new one gets ready on the sidelines. Siavash
On 2007-04-11 16:47:14 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
I'd respectfully suggest that you stop wagging the dog with this.
"Wagging the dog" implies that there is a bigger, hidden issue behind, so... what do you mean?
The idea that the rest of the ICANN community should adopt its schedule to ALAC's whim. Having the appointments somewhat in synch is beneficial for all.
(Resending with non-work address.)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir -----------------------------------------------
This makes sense to me as well. It puts a bit of work onto the 2 Board liaisons to interact, and doesn't let the new Liaison have the first Board meeting f2f, but rather via telecom, but we aren't going to choose a Board liason who doesn't know the Board members, so that isn't too much of a burden. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Siavash Shahshahani [mailto:shahshah@irnic.ir] Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 12:25 PM To: Vittorio Bertola; Adam Peake; alac@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Rules of procedure, draft 2 Sorry, rather late, but I miss the point of this debate. If ALAC's liaison to the Board is selected at AGM (or any other time for that matter), the old liaison can do the job for the following six weeks required(suggested) by the by laws while the new one gets ready on the sidelines. Siavash
On 2007-04-11 16:47:14 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
I'd respectfully suggest that you stop wagging the dog with this.
"Wagging the dog" implies that there is a bigger, hidden issue behind, so... what do you mean?
The idea that the rest of the ICANN community should adopt its schedule to ALAC's whim. Having the appointments somewhat in synch is beneficial for all.
(Resending with non-work address.)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir ----------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
Oops I just read the bylaws again. They are clear that "the non-voting liaisons shall serve terms that begin at the conclusion of each annual meeting. At least one month before the commencement of each annual meeting, each body entitled to appoint a non-voting liaison shall give the Secretary of ICANN written notice of its appointment." So that we HAVE to have the Board liason chosen at least 1 month before the annual meeting. What we can possibly do is have the ALAC elections at the meeting BEFORE the annual meeting? But then it's the outgoing ALAC that will choose the new positions, and the new members will nto have a chance to participate. Unless we separate the Board liason position from the rest? Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 10:06 AM To: shahshah@irnic.ir; 'Vittorio Bertola'; 'Adam Peake'; alac@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Rules of procedure, draft 2 This makes sense to me as well. It puts a bit of work onto the 2 Board liaisons to interact, and doesn't let the new Liaison have the first Board meeting f2f, but rather via telecom, but we aren't going to choose a Board liason who doesn't know the Board members, so that isn't too much of a burden. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Siavash Shahshahani [mailto:shahshah@irnic.ir] Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 12:25 PM To: Vittorio Bertola; Adam Peake; alac@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Rules of procedure, draft 2 Sorry, rather late, but I miss the point of this debate. If ALAC's liaison to the Board is selected at AGM (or any other time for that matter), the old liaison can do the job for the following six weeks required(suggested) by the by laws while the new one gets ready on the sidelines. Siavash
On 2007-04-11 16:47:14 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
I'd respectfully suggest that you stop wagging the dog with this.
"Wagging the dog" implies that there is a bigger, hidden issue behind, so... what do you mean?
The idea that the rest of the ICANN community should adopt its schedule to ALAC's whim. Having the appointments somewhat in synch is beneficial for all.
(Resending with non-work address.)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir ----------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
Hi Jacqueline, In that case, let's separate the election of Board liaison. This position is important enough to merit a separate election date. Regarding your comment about Brett having served so well w/o having been an ALAC member, as I understand it Brett became the liaison about the same time as ALAC was being formed so that their positions may have developed together(am I right? is Brett listening?), but the situation is becoming very different now. The future input to ALAC will presumably come from ALSs and RALOs and we should have someone tuned to all this ALAC activity. Siavash
Oops I just read the bylaws again. They are clear that "the non-voting liaisons shall serve terms that begin at the conclusion of each annual meeting. At least one month before the commencement of each annual meeting, each body entitled to appoint a non-voting liaison shall give the Secretary of ICANN written notice of its appointment." So that we HAVE to have the Board liason chosen at least 1 month before the annual meeting. What we can possibly do is have the ALAC elections at the meeting BEFORE the annual meeting? But then it's the outgoing ALAC that will choose the new positions, and the new members will nto have a chance to participate. Unless we separate the Board liason position from the rest? Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 10:06 AM To: shahshah@irnic.ir; 'Vittorio Bertola'; 'Adam Peake'; alac@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Rules of procedure, draft 2
This makes sense to me as well. It puts a bit of work onto the 2 Board liaisons to interact, and doesn't let the new Liaison have the first Board meeting f2f, but rather via telecom, but we aren't going to choose a Board liason who doesn't know the Board members, so that isn't too much of a burden. Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Siavash Shahshahani [mailto:shahshah@irnic.ir] Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 12:25 PM To: Vittorio Bertola; Adam Peake; alac@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Rules of procedure, draft 2
Sorry, rather late, but I miss the point of this debate. If ALAC's liaison to the Board is selected at AGM (or any other time for that matter), the old liaison can do the job for the following six weeks required(suggested) by the by laws while the new one gets ready on the sidelines. Siavash
On 2007-04-11 16:47:14 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
I'd respectfully suggest that you stop wagging the dog with this.
"Wagging the dog" implies that there is a bigger, hidden issue behind, so... what do you mean?
The idea that the rest of the ICANN community should adopt its schedule to ALAC's whim. Having the appointments somewhat in synch is beneficial for all.
(Resending with non-work address.)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir -----------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir -----------------------------------------------
Jacqueline A. Morris ha scritto:
Oops I just read the bylaws again. They are clear that "the non-voting liaisons shall serve terms that begin at the conclusion of each annual meeting. At least one month before the commencement of each annual meeting, each body entitled to appoint a non-voting liaison shall give the Secretary of ICANN written notice of its appointment." So that we HAVE to have the Board liason chosen at least 1 month before the annual meeting. What we can possibly do is have the ALAC elections at the meeting BEFORE the annual meeting? But then it's the outgoing ALAC that will choose the new positions, and the new members will nto have a chance to participate. Unless we separate the Board liason position from the rest?
That's a decision we have to make. This year, no one complained about us being late in appointing the Board liaison, so we might ask ICANN whether they'd be ok with waiving that obligation (though Thomas objected to that earlier in this discussion). Or we might be nice and move all the elections one month earlier in the year, or at the previous meeting. (I'd still tend to have all elections together, otherwise we'll be spending most of the second half of the year in electing officers.) In any case, be aware that in the present draft it is anyway the outgoing ALAC that votes, not the new one. There's no special reason for that, we might change that if we find it more logical to have the elections done by the new ALAC. However, that definitely would make us miss the 1-month deadline, as that would have to happen during the AGM, with a special clause to let the new members vote even if they're not in the position yet. (Or you could vote after the formal closure of the AGM, but then the new liaison would miss the first meeting of the "new Board", the one in which the Board officers and committees are elected.) In short, I see three possibilities: 1) as it is now: the old ALAC votes at the AGM; 2) the old ALAC votes at the ICANN meeting before the AGM; 3) the new ALAC votes at the AGM. Perhaps we can have some more opinions on this? -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Vittorio Bertola wrote:
In short, I see three possibilities: 1) as it is now: the old ALAC votes at the AGM; 2) the old ALAC votes at the ICANN meeting before the AGM; 3) the new ALAC votes at the AGM.
Perhaps we can have some more opinions on this?
I think it's clear the new ALAC should vote for its representatives. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I think it's clear the new ALAC should vote for its representatives.
Absolutely. Unless I am missing something, this implies two rounds of elections, the first one by the RALOs for the ALAC members, the second one by the ALAC for the officers. Regards, Roberto
For your planning purposes, I expect that the NARALO will elect its ALAC representatives at the San Juan meeting. -- Bret
Unless I am missing something, this implies two rounds of elections, the first one by the RALOs for the ALAC members, the second one by the ALAC for the officers.
And I don't. --Wendy Bret Fausett wrote:
For your planning purposes, I expect that the NARALO will elect its ALAC representatives at the San Juan meeting.
-- Bret
Unless I am missing something, this implies two rounds of elections, the first one by the RALOs for the ALAC members, the second one by the ALAC for the officers.
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Yes and each RALO has different times for their election of members, so some will know the names mid-year, others just before the annual meeting, etc. But all new ALAC members will take their seats after the end of the annual meeting. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 6:20 PM To: 'Wendy Seltzer'; 'Vittorio Bertola' Cc: alac@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Rules of procedure, draft 2 Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I think it's clear the new ALAC should vote for its representatives.
Absolutely. Unless I am missing something, this implies two rounds of elections, the first one by the RALOs for the ALAC members, the second one by the ALAC for the officers. Regards, Roberto _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
Once all the RALOs are formed and the ALAC is no longer "interim" -----Original Message----- From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 8:18 PM To: 'Roberto Gaetano'; 'Wendy Seltzer'; 'Vittorio Bertola' Cc: alac@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Rules of procedure, draft 2 Yes and each RALO has different times for their election of members, so some will know the names mid-year, others just before the annual meeting, etc. But all new ALAC members will take their seats after the end of the annual meeting. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 6:20 PM To: 'Wendy Seltzer'; 'Vittorio Bertola' Cc: alac@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Rules of procedure, draft 2 Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I think it's clear the new ALAC should vote for its representatives.
Absolutely. Unless I am missing something, this implies two rounds of elections, the first one by the RALOs for the ALAC members, the second one by the ALAC for the officers. Regards, Roberto _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
Yes and each RALO has different times for their election of members, so some will know the names mid-year, others just before the annual meeting, etc. But all new ALAC members will take their seats after the end of the annual meeting.
But the terms are staggered. Each year half the voting ALAC members won't be new (and probably half of the "new" will be old representatives returning to positions they'd served in before.) What is the problem with voting for a liaison a month before the AGM? Adam
Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 6:20 PM To: 'Wendy Seltzer'; 'Vittorio Bertola' Cc: alac@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Rules of procedure, draft 2
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I think it's clear the new ALAC should vote for its representatives.
Absolutely.
Unless I am missing something, this implies two rounds of elections, the first one by the RALOs for the ALAC members, the second one by the ALAC for the officers.
Regards, Roberto
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
No problem really for me - just need to agree on a process. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 10:43 PM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Rules of procedure, draft 2
Yes and each RALO has different times for their election of members, so some will know the names mid-year, others just before the annual meeting, etc. But all new ALAC members will take their seats after the end of the annual meeting.
But the terms are staggered. Each year half the voting ALAC members won't be new (and probably half of the "new" will be old representatives returning to positions they'd served in before.) What is the problem with voting for a liaison a month before the AGM? Adam
Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto@icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 6:20 PM To: 'Wendy Seltzer'; 'Vittorio Bertola' Cc: alac@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Rules of procedure, draft 2
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I think it's clear the new ALAC should vote for its representatives.
Absolutely.
Unless I am missing something, this implies two rounds of elections, the first one by the RALOs for the ALAC members, the second one by the ALAC for the officers.
Regards, Roberto
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.or g
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.or g
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
Roberto Gaetano ha scritto:
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I think it's clear the new ALAC should vote for its representatives.
Absolutely.
Unless I am missing something, this implies two rounds of elections, the first one by the RALOs for the ALAC members, the second one by the ALAC for the officers.
Incidentally, there is no term for the RALOs to notify their appointments, and some RALOs might want to meet at the AGM and vote there! So there's a bit of an electoral jam here :-) Perhaps a solution (if we agree that we want to go for the third option I posted, "the new ALAC votes at the AGM") would be to add a clause that says that, even if the vote is held before the closure of the AGM (and it has to be so, because the first meeting of the new Board starts immediately after), it is the new ALAC members that vote, unless they have not been elected yet, in which case the old ALAC members vote in their place. Anyway, we could also have a clause asking RALOs to notify their appointments, say, no later than three days before the closure of the AGM. That would allow RALOs to meet in the first days of the meeting and do the election. If this is the line of conduct that we like, I will draft text to this effect - but is everyone ok with this? Could we please have a straw poll on preferences among the three options: 1) as it is now: the old ALAC votes at the AGM; 2) the old ALAC votes at the ICANN meeting before the AGM; 3) the new ALAC votes at the AGM. Up to now, I've seen Wendy for 3), and personally that's the one I prefer as well. Of course, if we prefer 1) or 3) then we have to check whether that's acceptable to ICANN, but I'd do it later and come back to the decision only if there are problems. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
At 9:06 AM +0200 4/18/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
Roberto Gaetano ha scritto:
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I think it's clear the new ALAC should vote for its representatives.
Absolutely.
Unless I am missing something, this implies two rounds of elections, the first one by the RALOs for the ALAC members, the second one by the ALAC for the officers.
Incidentally, there is no term for the RALOs to notify their appointments, and some RALOs might want to meet at the AGM and vote there! So there's a bit of an electoral jam here :-)
Why is every ALAC discussion so long-winded and drawn out. I don't mean this as an attack or to be rude. It just seems to be the case. Electing the liaison is typical. It's been discussed for a few hours in face to face meetings (Lisbon, and was mentioned in Sao Paulo... I think.) It's been part of draft papers. There's still disagreement now. And perhaps a new "log jam". Why not look at the bylaws, say "OK, our terms begin at the end of each AGM, every year we'll elect a board liaison on a schedule that allows us to send the name one month prior to the AGM." And work back from there. Organizations cannot debate every item to the finest detail, at some point you just have to get on with it. Hours and hours of person-time on what? I do understand people have different opinions (on everything...) and that there are reasonable democratic concerns for having made the choice you've made. But *every* decisions seems to be like this. A real concern is how ALAC is viewed by the rest of ICANN -- it's not good. The RALO formations has given a nice bump in the "polls", but overall it's bad. I don't see what the fuss is. Once the staggered terms are in place (by next year?) all ALAC members will serve 2 years and will get 2 goes at selecting these positions. So where's the problem? Adam
Perhaps a solution (if we agree that we want to go for the third option I posted, "the new ALAC votes at the AGM") would be to add a clause that says that, even if the vote is held before the closure of the AGM (and it has to be so, because the first meeting of the new Board starts immediately after), it is the new ALAC members that vote, unless they have not been elected yet, in which case the old ALAC members vote in their place.
Anyway, we could also have a clause asking RALOs to notify their appointments, say, no later than three days before the closure of the AGM. That would allow RALOs to meet in the first days of the meeting and do the election.
If this is the line of conduct that we like, I will draft text to this effect - but is everyone ok with this? Could we please have a straw poll on preferences among the three options:
1) as it is now: the old ALAC votes at the AGM; 2) the old ALAC votes at the ICANN meeting before the AGM; 3) the new ALAC votes at the AGM.
Up to now, I've seen Wendy for 3), and personally that's the one I prefer as well.
Of course, if we prefer 1) or 3) then we have to check whether that's acceptable to ICANN, but I'd do it later and come back to the decision only if there are problems. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
Hi--speaking as ex-ALAC I have to add that I would have had no idea who to vote for at my first ALAC meeting. How is any new representative supposed to make a good choice if they don't know the players? That's why I think the sitting "old" ALAC should choose its officers at the AGM, and chooses the liaisons a month before the AGM. I agree with Adam. Everyone gets two years to try and make a difference. At 6:02 PM +0900 4/18/07, Adam Peake recently said:
At 9:06 AM +0200 4/18/07, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
Roberto Gaetano ha scritto:
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I think it's clear the new ALAC should vote for its representatives.
Absolutely.
Unless I am missing something, this implies two rounds of elections, the first one by the RALOs for the ALAC members, the second one by the ALAC for the officers.
Incidentally, there is no term for the RALOs to notify their appointments, and some RALOs might want to meet at the AGM and vote there! So there's a bit of an electoral jam here :-)
Why is every ALAC discussion so long-winded and drawn out. I don't mean this as an attack or to be rude. It just seems to be the case.
Electing the liaison is typical. It's been discussed for a few hours in face to face meetings (Lisbon, and was mentioned in Sao Paulo... I think.) It's been part of draft papers. There's still disagreement now. And perhaps a new "log jam".
Why not look at the bylaws, say "OK, our terms begin at the end of each AGM, every year we'll elect a board liaison on a schedule that allows us to send the name one month prior to the AGM." And work back from there. Organizations cannot debate every item to the finest detail, at some point you just have to get on with it. Hours and hours of person-time on what?
I do understand people have different opinions (on everything...) and that there are reasonable democratic concerns for having made the choice you've made. But *every* decisions seems to be like this.
A real concern is how ALAC is viewed by the rest of ICANN -- it's not good. The RALO formations has given a nice bump in the "polls", but overall it's bad.
I don't see what the fuss is. Once the staggered terms are in place (by next year?) all ALAC members will serve 2 years and will get 2 goes at selecting these positions. So where's the problem?
Adam
Perhaps a solution (if we agree that we want to go for the third option I posted, "the new ALAC votes at the AGM") would be to add a clause that says that, even if the vote is held before the closure of the AGM (and it has to be so, because the first meeting of the new Board starts immediately after), it is the new ALAC members that vote, unless they have not been elected yet, in which case the old ALAC members vote in their place.
Anyway, we could also have a clause asking RALOs to notify their appointments, say, no later than three days before the closure of the AGM. That would allow RALOs to meet in the first days of the meeting and do the election.
If this is the line of conduct that we like, I will draft text to this effect - but is everyone ok with this? Could we please have a straw poll on preferences among the three options:
1) as it is now: the old ALAC votes at the AGM; 2) the old ALAC votes at the ICANN meeting before the AGM; 3) the new ALAC votes at the AGM.
Up to now, I've seen Wendy for 3), and personally that's the one I prefer as well.
Of course, if we prefer 1) or 3) then we have to check whether that's acceptable to ICANN, but I'd do it later and come back to the decision only if there are problems. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
I go for 2 - we have one "election time" and get it over with in good time to send names where they need to be sent, with new positions being taken up after the AGM, and we have time for the new officers to "shadow" and get up to speed where necessary. Adam's right about the terms allowing for the "new" ALAC to vote 2x. He's also right in that we seem to get stuck on some things after we are almost agreed, and then end up starting the discussion all over again. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb@bertola.eu] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 3:06 AM To: Roberto Gaetano Cc: alac@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Rules of procedure, draft 2 Roberto Gaetano ha scritto:
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I think it's clear the new ALAC should vote for its representatives.
Absolutely.
Unless I am missing something, this implies two rounds of elections, the first one by the RALOs for the ALAC members, the second one by the ALAC for the officers.
Incidentally, there is no term for the RALOs to notify their appointments, and some RALOs might want to meet at the AGM and vote there! So there's a bit of an electoral jam here :-) Perhaps a solution (if we agree that we want to go for the third option I posted, "the new ALAC votes at the AGM") would be to add a clause that says that, even if the vote is held before the closure of the AGM (and it has to be so, because the first meeting of the new Board starts immediately after), it is the new ALAC members that vote, unless they have not been elected yet, in which case the old ALAC members vote in their place. Anyway, we could also have a clause asking RALOs to notify their appointments, say, no later than three days before the closure of the AGM. That would allow RALOs to meet in the first days of the meeting and do the election. If this is the line of conduct that we like, I will draft text to this effect - but is everyone ok with this? Could we please have a straw poll on preferences among the three options: 1) as it is now: the old ALAC votes at the AGM; 2) the old ALAC votes at the ICANN meeting before the AGM; 3) the new ALAC votes at the AGM. Up to now, I've seen Wendy for 3), and personally that's the one I prefer as well. Of course, if we prefer 1) or 3) then we have to check whether that's acceptable to ICANN, but I'd do it later and come back to the decision only if there are problems. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.1/765 - Release Date: 4/17/2007 5:20 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.5.1/765 - Release Date: 4/17/2007 5:20 PM
All the more reason then for the lower quorum/majority requirements for recall. If the new ALAC don't like the old selections, they should be free to replace them. --Wendy Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
I go for 2 - we have one "election time" and get it over with in good time to send names where they need to be sent, with new positions being taken up after the AGM, and we have time for the new officers to "shadow" and get up to speed where necessary. Adam's right about the terms allowing for the "new" ALAC to vote 2x. He's also right in that we seem to get stuck on some things after we are almost agreed, and then end up starting the discussion all over again. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb@bertola.eu] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 3:06 AM To: Roberto Gaetano Cc: alac@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Rules of procedure, draft 2
Roberto Gaetano ha scritto:
Wendy Seltzer wrote:
I think it's clear the new ALAC should vote for its representatives.
Absolutely.
Unless I am missing something, this implies two rounds of elections, the first one by the RALOs for the ALAC members, the second one by the ALAC for the officers.
Incidentally, there is no term for the RALOs to notify their appointments, and some RALOs might want to meet at the AGM and vote there! So there's a bit of an electoral jam here :-)
Perhaps a solution (if we agree that we want to go for the third option I posted, "the new ALAC votes at the AGM") would be to add a clause that says that, even if the vote is held before the closure of the AGM (and it has to be so, because the first meeting of the new Board starts immediately after), it is the new ALAC members that vote, unless they have not been elected yet, in which case the old ALAC members vote in their place.
Anyway, we could also have a clause asking RALOs to notify their appointments, say, no later than three days before the closure of the AGM. That would allow RALOs to meet in the first days of the meeting and do the election.
If this is the line of conduct that we like, I will draft text to this effect - but is everyone ok with this? Could we please have a straw poll on preferences among the three options:
1) as it is now: the old ALAC votes at the AGM; 2) the old ALAC votes at the ICANN meeting before the AGM; 3) the new ALAC votes at the AGM.
Up to now, I've seen Wendy for 3), and personally that's the one I prefer as well.
Of course, if we prefer 1) or 3) then we have to check whether that's acceptable to ICANN, but I'd do it later and come back to the decision only if there are problems.
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Wendy Seltzer ha scritto:
All the more reason then for the lower quorum/majority requirements for recall. If the new ALAC don't like the old selections, they should be free to replace them.
Honestly, I'm not sure that the idea of a Committee that spends a month to elect officers for one year at a time, and then a couple of times per year spends another month to try to recall them, will be well received by the rest of ICANN or by any sane person... -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Vittorio Bertola wrote:
Wendy Seltzer ha scritto:
All the more reason then for the lower quorum/majority requirements for recall. If the new ALAC don't like the old selections, they should be free to replace them.
Honestly, I'm not sure that the idea of a Committee that spends a month to elect officers for one year at a time, and then a couple of times per year spends another month to try to recall them, will be well received by the rest of ICANN or by any sane person...
But neither will a committee liaison or officer who's at odds with the will of the current committee. The possibility of change, more than its exercise, will serve as a valuable check. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Honestly, I'm not sure that the idea of a Committee that spends a month
to elect officers for one year at a time, and then a couple of times per year spends another month to try to recall them, will be well received by the rest of ICANN or by any sane person...
--Please note that if we go for option 2, we will need to start the
procedure for electing officers for 2008 in a couple of weeks from now, so that we can vote in San Juan.
Absolutely, it is indeed burdensome to spend a month every year to elect officers or others. But if Alac would do so, it should start at the end of September 2007, which is a month before the AGM at somewhere still unknown. It would be too early to commence the process in June in San Juan.
Hong
Jacqueline A. Morris ha scritto:
I go for 2 - we have one "election time" and get it over with in good time to send names where they need to be sent, with new positions being taken up after the AGM, and we have time for the new officers to "shadow" and get up to speed where necessary. Adam's right about the terms allowing for the "new" ALAC to vote 2x. He's also right in that we seem to get stuck on some things after we are almost agreed, and then end up starting the discussion all over again.
He is, but rules are a sensitive matter and a few members do have strong opinions on them, though the others do not seem to participate a lot in this discussion. Anyway, you are the Chair and you can call for consensus... and I'd rather get out of this discussion, so I'm happy to move my preference from option 3 to option 2. So if you want I can prepare a new draft based on: - revised 1.g (comments received were generally agreeable, I think) - 9 votes to change rules or recall officers - option 2 for when to vote (old ALAC, meeting before AGM) Please note that if we go for option 2, we will need to start the procedure for electing officers for 2008 in a couple of weeks from now, so that we can vote in San Juan. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
I apologize if this is old news to you. As discussion involved "rating registrars" a few days ago, I thought I'd make certain everyone in the organization had this information as it is fresh, though may be redundant. I will, unfortunately, not make your acquaintance In Montreal, but will look forward to meeting you in San Juan. We have posted the story. I only included the first paragraph in case anyone has filters that would not allow the body. http://internetcommerce.org/news/icanns_gets_restraining_order_against_regis terfly ICANN Obtains Restraining Order Against RegisterFly (Reposted by The ICA) ICANN's Application for Temporary Restraining Order Against RegisterFly Has Been Granted 17 April 2007 Marina del Rey, CA RegisterFly has been ordered by US Federal Court Judge, Manuel J. Real, to hand over to ICANN current and accurate data for all of its domain names now that ICANN's application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against RegisterFly was granted yesterday. Under the TRO, RegisterFly is also obliged to provide this data every seven days, plus immediately allow ICANN staff access to the company's records and books in order to perform an audit. It is on our home page as well: www.InternetCommerce.org Sincerely, Jude Augusta Jude Anthony Augusta, Esq./MBA Executive Director Internet Commerce Association (t) 603.601.0646 (f) 603.601.0972 jude@internetcommerce.org www.InternetCommerce.org
It is not old news Jude. Registerfly deserves to be punished. There was no response to a BBB complaint. They cant even find them on address and the address in FLA gets hit right back to the NJ BBB which is the problem in and above itself. LISA SMITH BSB/EB CLASS OF 2007 Ladies Auxiliary VFW HISTORIAN #7778 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jude Augusta" <jude@internetcommerce.org> To: <alac@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 9:49 AM Subject: [At-Large] ICANN Obtains Restraining Order Against RegisterFly I apologize if this is old news to you. As discussion involved "rating registrars" a few days ago, I thought I'd make certain everyone in the organization had this information as it is fresh, though may be redundant. I will, unfortunately, not make your acquaintance In Montreal, but will look forward to meeting you in San Juan. We have posted the story. I only included the first paragraph in case anyone has filters that would not allow the body. http://internetcommerce.org/news/icanns_gets_restraining_order_against_regis terfly ICANN Obtains Restraining Order Against RegisterFly (Reposted by The ICA) ICANN's Application for Temporary Restraining Order Against RegisterFly Has Been Granted 17 April 2007 Marina del Rey, CA < RegisterFly has been ordered by US Federal Court Judge, Manuel J. Real, to hand over to ICANN current and accurate data for all of its domain names now that ICANN's application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against RegisterFly was granted yesterday. Under the TRO, RegisterFly is also obliged to provide this data every seven days, plus immediately allow ICANN staff access to the company's records and books in order to perform an audit. It is on our home page as well: www.InternetCommerce.org Sincerely, Jude Augusta Jude Anthony Augusta, Esq./MBA Executive Director Internet Commerce Association (t) 603.601.0646 (f) 603.601.0972 jude@internetcommerce.org www.InternetCommerce.org _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
I would double-check with General Counsel. While the one you point out is a general rule, there is still the possibility of changing the Liaison during the year. As a matter of fact, John Klensin (IETF Liaison) stepped down in June 2005, and was replaced immediately, while Sharil (GAC Liaison) stepped down in March 2007, while his successor had been appointed already since Sao Paulo and there has been a three months overlap. The only case where strict rules are enforced is the TLG Liaison, but this is because there is a rotation among ETSI, ITU and W3C, and they serve one year each. Regards, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacqueline A. Morris Sent: 17 April 2007 16:27 To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; shahshah@irnic.ir; 'Vittorio Bertola'; 'Adam Peake'; alac@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Rules of procedure, draft 2
Oops I just read the bylaws again. They are clear that "the non-voting liaisons shall serve terms that begin at the conclusion of each annual meeting. At least one month before the commencement of each annual meeting, each body entitled to appoint a non-voting liaison shall give the Secretary of ICANN written notice of its appointment." So that we HAVE to have the Board liason chosen at least 1 month before the annual meeting. What we can possibly do is have the ALAC elections at the meeting BEFORE the annual meeting? But then it's the outgoing ALAC that will choose the new positions, and the new members will nto have a chance to participate. Unless we separate the Board liason position from the rest? Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 10:06 AM To: shahshah@irnic.ir; 'Vittorio Bertola'; 'Adam Peake'; alac@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Rules of procedure, draft 2
This makes sense to me as well. It puts a bit of work onto the 2 Board liaisons to interact, and doesn't let the new Liaison have the first Board meeting f2f, but rather via telecom, but we aren't going to choose a Board liason who doesn't know the Board members, so that isn't too much of a burden. Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Siavash Shahshahani [mailto:shahshah@irnic.ir] Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 12:25 PM To: Vittorio Bertola; Adam Peake; alac@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Rules of procedure, draft 2
Sorry, rather late, but I miss the point of this debate. If ALAC's liaison to the Board is selected at AGM (or any other time for that matter), the old liaison can do the job for the following six weeks required(suggested) by the by laws while the new one gets ready on the sidelines. Siavash
On 2007-04-11 16:47:14 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
I'd respectfully suggest that you stop wagging the dog with this.
"Wagging the dog" implies that there is a bigger, hidden issue behind, so... what do you mean?
The idea that the rest of the ICANN community should adopt its schedule to ALAC's whim. Having the appointments somewhat in synch is beneficial for all.
(Resending with non-work address.)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir -----------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
Vittorio Bertola wrote:
==> 6.d and 11.b, majorities necessary to recall officers and amend the rules - as agreed, here is a recap of different proposals:
1. Initial proposal
10 votes in favour.
Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 10 must be in favour. If all vote, 10 must be in favour (66%).
2. Wendy's proposal
Simple majority of those who vote, quorum of 2/3.
Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 6 must be in favour. If all vote, 8 must be in favour.
3. Izumi's proposal
2/3 majority of those who vote, quorum of 2/3.
Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 7 must be in favour. If all vote, 10 must be in favour.
4. A possible compromise?
2/3 majority of those who vote, quorum 2/3, *and* simple majority of the committee.
Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 8 must be in favour. If all vote, 10 must be in favour.
My opinion => The initial proposal purposedly makes it hard to do these two things, because changes to fundamental rules need to be broadly shared,
I don't think we have enough claim to bind future ALACs. I stand by my proposal or Izumi's. --Wendy and because a recall vote in the middle of a 1-year term is
going to be highly controversial anyway. Personally I would like to see these things happen only when there is almost full consensus in the Committee, rather than running into the risk of them happening too often as an ordinary tool of internal "discussion". Also, I'd be afraid of a system that allows a minority of the Committee to take such a decision under any conditions - that's why I think that #4 might be an interesting compromise.
Ciao,
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
Vittorio Bertola wrote:
==> 1.g (new section) on criteria for officers - this is what I came up with as a first draft:
----- g. [Officers shall be freely chosen by the ALAC, according to the following criteria:
They shall be persons who are current or former members of the ALAC, or are anyway familiar with the activities and functioning of the ALAC;
They shall accept to serve on behalf of the ALAC by acting for the good of individual Internet users and the Committee, working to bridge differences and build consensus, but also recognizing difference and enabling different opinions to be shared.
It's not just the collective views, but the minority viewpoints when those differ on the committee. Since ALAC is already a collection of five regional groups, which are themselves collections of local organizations, differences of opinion at the ALAC level are to be expected and should be shared with other ICANN entities. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
I am now asking for opinions on the two remaining open parts, so that hopefully we can reach consensus
Here they are:
==> 1.g (new section) on criteria for officers - this is what I came up with as a first draft:
-----
Suggestions welcome.
I suggest a revision to reflect the following: There should be a distinction between liaisons and those selected for specific task forces. Liaisons should be more familiar with the current atmosphere of ALAC and RALOs because they should be prepared to reflect ALAC thinking on any problem that arises, while Task Forces are more narrowly focused and presumably the person chosen by ICANN is qualified for the particular task. So I suggest that the wording for liaisons be such that 'normally' an ALAC member or recent member be expected to be appointed, while no such preference be stated for task forces. ----------------------------------------------------
==> 6.d and 11.b, majorities necessary to recall officers and amend the rules - as agreed, here is a recap of different proposals:
-------------------------------------------------------- I thought that the absolute number 9 answered all concerns in the telephone conference. If everybody votes, then 9 is one more than simple majority, in fact it is half+one rounded up; if the minimum quorum of 10 vote, then 9 is large enough not to make such a vote easy. ----------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with Adam that we should formalize our selection for NomComm; here's an area where we could ask the public and specially the ALSs for nominations. Best, Siavash
Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
Hi Siavash I agree with the distinction between adhoc task forces etc and liaisons to the Board, GNSO, etc. But GNSO for example, Bret wasn't ALAC, but did a great job. So the "normally" would work for me. I'd want to include that they need to be very familiar with ALAC and ICANN processes. I'm good with 9 as the absolute number. Either proposal that takes us to that number is fine. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Siavash Shahshahani [mailto:shahshah@irnic.ir] Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 12:52 PM To: Vittorio Bertola Cc: Interim ALAC Subject: Re: [At-Large] Rules of procedure, draft 2
I am now asking for opinions on the two remaining open parts, so that hopefully we can reach consensus
Here they are:
==> 1.g (new section) on criteria for officers - this is what I came up with as a first draft:
-----
Suggestions welcome.
I suggest a revision to reflect the following: There should be a distinction between liaisons and those selected for specific task forces. Liaisons should be more familiar with the current atmosphere of ALAC and RALOs because they should be prepared to reflect ALAC thinking on any problem that arises, while Task Forces are more narrowly focused and presumably the person chosen by ICANN is qualified for the particular task. So I suggest that the wording for liaisons be such that 'normally' an ALAC member or recent member be expected to be appointed, while no such preference be stated for task forces. ----------------------------------------------------
==> 6.d and 11.b, majorities necessary to recall officers and amend the rules - as agreed, here is a recap of different proposals:
-------------------------------------------------------- I thought that the absolute number 9 answered all concerns in the telephone conference. If everybody votes, then 9 is one more than simple majority, in fact it is half+one rounded up; if the minimum quorum of 10 vote, then 9 is large enough not to make such a vote easy. ----------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with Adam that we should formalize our selection for NomComm; here's an area where we could ask the public and specially the ALSs for nominations. Best, Siavash
Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.4.0/762 - Release Date: 4/15/2007 4:22 PM
participants (12)
-
Adam Peake -
Bret Fausett -
Hong Xue -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Jean Armour Polly -
Jude Augusta -
LISA SMITH -
Roberto Gaetano -
Siavash Shahshahani -
Thomas Roessler -
Vittorio Bertola -
Wendy Seltzer