thank you olivier, thank you adam. i would like to support what you drafted. i think we should also mention the issue of the voting procedure of the ALAC and RALO chairs. i consider it to be crucial that there is a need for majority vote and if no candidate reached this in the first round, there should be a second vote of the three best candidates and a final vote on the two best candidates. this procedure makes sure that we have the chance to find - on a rather consensus based procedure - a candidate who will be supported by all regions. adam, in addition to your statement below: i think it is always helpful to make a precise proposal of procedure and timelines that should be reviewed by the At-Large Board Selection Design Team. instead of only asking them to come up with new proposals without making an own proposal. all the best annette ----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: "Adam Peake" <ajp@glocom.ac.jp> Gesendet: 20.10.2010 13:31:56 An: "Discussion for At-Large Europe" <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] URGENT: Draft statement to ALAC on At Large Board Director Election Process
Dear Olivier,
Thanks for following up on this so quickly. Really is an important issue.
As a general introduction it's important to capture what I think was a strong sentiment on the call, namely that after such a long and exhaustive process, where all involved from the At Large have tried to create the most inclusive and transparent processes possible, it would be a disaster to rush the end of the process and create something less democratic and an outcome that would be less than satisfactory.
(And I've just seen Christopher's email, and agree: the legitimacy of the eventually "successful" candidate will clearly be contested.)
I would begin the letter as follows:
"Dear Colleagues,
At the EURALO Conference call 19 October, the issue of timing for the At Large Board Director Election Process took most of the debate time. In fact, it became the most important issue, prompting the other issues to be re-scheduled for our next EURALO Conference call.
The schedule which appears to have been proposed is: - 28 October 2010: Board Meeting, where the Board is expected to approve the Bylaw changes, and if so: - 3 November 2010: BCEC is scheduled to announce the slate of 3-7 candidates retained for election - 3-12 November 2010 (10 days): candidates able to reach out to the At Large community (campaigning) - 15-19 November 2010 (5 days): Election takes place
With the person selected expected to be able to participate in the Cartagena meeting (starting for the board on Saturday December 4, or perhaps earlier) and to take their place as a voting Director on Friday December 10.
EURALO is of the opinion that as so much effort has gone into making the process of selecting the At Large Director as transparent, inclusive and democratic as possible, it would be a grave error to risk having this good work undermined at the last moment by having to rush to meet externally imposed deadlines.
We propose writing to the Board to inform them that the lack of timely necessary changes to the bylaws has caused delay to the At Large process of selecting the voting Director. Given the very short time remaining after the Board's anticipated decision of 28 October 2010, the ALAC is concerned that it cannot, in good faith, select a person to this important position in time to enable them to take their seat at the end of the 2010 AGM."
(end of new draft text.)
While I think you have proposed a logical process, and have squeezed in most of the processes we think necessary to ensure the minimum good process, I think we should also consider a second option: If we were designing the process without the pressure of the Cartagena meeting/AGM, how many days would we recommend? I proposed we recommend that the question of process and timeline for selection be given back to the At-Large Board Selection Design Team to make a proposal for the appropriate way forward. They should be asked to suggest the best possible process, and not consider any outside deadlines and target dates. I think it is important we all take time to consider the schedule needed to produce a fair selection process, and I hope the design team will be able to quickly come up with a process that could take input from all the RALOs.
Missing from the draft: candidate petition.
Candidates not on the slate offered by the BCEC should have the opportunity to petition for inclusion. I believe the opportunity to get back on the slate was an important aspect of the white paper plan.
I do not think it would be appropriate for candidates to be petitioning while others were campaigning. So some time must be added to the schedule to allow for a possible petition process. How long is the minimum for the RALOs to consider and agree on petitions?
Other than this, I would not recommend specifying a new timeline at this stage. As we think more about all the issues involved we may find even more time is required. Let's propose a timeline after discussing with other RALOs, best, let's leave it to the design team to consider the matter and to make recommendations.
I mentioned visas as a potential problem, information about visas here <http://www.colombia.travel/en/international-tourist/practical-information/tr...> If I understand the information correctly, that's not so many countries with a visa waiver (33?)
I am uncomfortable about suggesting the person might join the Board meeting via some form of remote access. Being able to join the other Directors for the week of meetings, and also receive briefings before the meeting, is important. Otherwise they will be at a disadvantage as soon as they join.
I think this will be an unpopular proposal, but I suggest we recommend to the Board that the person be accepted as a "member in waiting" until six months after the AGM when the begin their normal term. For that six month period they join the Board along side the existing ALAC liaison as a non-voting member, acting with the same privileges and restrictions as the current board liaisons.
More comments inline below:
Dear all,
at the EURALO Conference call today, the issue of timings for the At Large Board Director Election Process took most of the debate time. In fact, it became the most important issue, prompting the other issues to be re-scheduled for our next EURALO Conference call.
One immediate and urgent action item was to write a letter to the ALAC Chair and to the ALAC, asking for more time to be given to the election process. Wolf Ludwig and I wrote this together after the conference call. The draft letter's contents explain the matter in further detail.
Please be so kind to take the time to read the proposed statement/letter. What the EURALO Board needs today is your feedback by tonight, ie. Wednesday 20 October 2010, 20:00 CEST, in order to be able to send this by Thursday. We realise that the time for comments is really short, but this is required as the clock is ticking and we have to ask for more time as soon as possible.
Many thanks for your understanding in this crucial but exciting time for At Large.
Kindest regards,
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond EURALO Secretariat
--- start of draft statement ---
EURALO request to ALAC on At Large Board Director Election Process 20/10/2010
We are writing to you with regards to the proposed schedule for the election of the At Large Selected Board Position.
The schedule which appears to have been proposed is: - 28 October 2010: Board Meeting, where the Board is expected to approve the Bylaw changes, and if so: - 3 November 2010: BCEC is scheduled to announce the slate of 3-7 candidates retained for election - 3-12 November 2010 (10 days): candidates able to reach out to the At Large community (campaigning) - 15-19 November 2010 (5 days): Election takes place
It is understood that the period 12-15 November (4 days) might be used for any RALO election process. If added to the 5 days scheduled for the election, this provides a total of 10 days for voting - assuming voting can be considered legitimate when candidates have barely had a chance to present themselves.
Missing from the timeline is the opportunity for candidates not on the BCEC slate to petition to be placed on the slate. Hearing and judging petitions is a process that will involve all RALOs. Suggest 10 days (though it should, I think, be left to the design team.)
Overall I am uncomfortable with suggesting what is the bare minimum to make the process work. After all this effort we should be looking to maximize the process. We need to get this right. It's about legitimacy of process and the selection.
We refer you to the At Large January 2010 White Paper Recommendation 4:
"The Board seat should be selected by the ALAC plus the RALO Chairs. The RALO-appointed ALAC members and the RALO Chairs may be directed by their ALSes if the RALO desires (and in accordance with their RoP). This methodology gives ALSes large control over who is selected, without the complexity of two-level vote weighting and centralized ALS elector verification. The vote should be by secret ballot."
In the interest of empowerment of our ALSes, it is the desire of the EURALO Board to conduct a vote of our ALSes directing the EURALO Chair on his vote.
The opinions of the ALS will also inform the ALAC members, both those selected by the RALO and the NomCom appointee. Worth checking if some RALO's rules of procedure require a directed vote.
Whilst no mimimum vote timing is defined in the EURALO Rules of Procedures, clause 11.18.1 of the EURALO by-laws states that a sufficient amount of time is required for all members to record a vote on any matter. It is therefore good practice to provide at least 10 days of voting time for our ALSes. This appears to be clearly incompatible with the currently proposed ALAC schedule of only 4 days' voting time.
Whilst we understand that the proposed schedule takes into account a number of constraints in order to allow the At Large elected Director to take their seat on the last day of the Cartagena Meeting on Friday, 10 December 2010, we consider it unwise to hurry the process at the possible expense of a legitimate vote. ALSes need to be informed in time. Campaigning needs to be given enough time for Question/Answer sessions. Volunteers in ALSes need to find the time to make a sound decision for what is arguably one of At Large's most important decisions of recent years.
We therefore suggest the following course of action:
* the voting process be given more time, beyond the 15-19 November period. An extension of the Election until 30th November 2010 would provide more time for ALSes to cast their vote. Indeed, we believe that it would provide greater legitimacy to the process, thanks to a truly bottom-up empowerment. It will allow for voting time to fall closer in line with other ICANN processes requiring public input. We emphasize this further than standard procedure: it is a matter of credibility to our members and to the At Large community.
I would delete the above paragraph and say:
We recommend that the At-Large Board Selection Design Team is asked to quickly make a proposal for the appropriate way forward and to present a timeline for the selection process. We recognize that time is short and the design team may not have time to consult in depth with the RALOs, but should ask the respective RALO officers to reply to their respective members of the design team by end of Monday October 25 so there is time to inform the Board before their meeting on October 28.
* ICANN should be informed that an At Large Elected Director taking its seat on the Board after the end of the Cartagena meeting might not be able to make it to the meeting in person due to VISA issues, and provisions should therefore be made for that person to participate remotely, by Webcam or other appropriate means.
I would delete the above paragraph and say:
The Board will be informed of the problem the ALAC and RALOs are facing given the delay to the changes in the bylaws, and that the ALAC does not expect to be able to provide the name to the the selected At Large Director in time for them to be seated at the end of the AGM in Cartagena.
(my solution, expect unpopular)
ALAC will ask the Board to amend the by laws so that the person, when selected, will be able to join the Board along side the existing ALAC liaison as an additional non-voting member, acting with the same privileges and restrictions as the current board liaisons. The person will then take their voting seat six months after the AGM and commence their three-year term. At that time, the current ALAC liaison will step down.
[I am irritated we did not even try to keep the liaison position... but that's another discussion.]
* A clear and concise explanation of the voting process and schedule should be published as soon as possible, with an explanation of the procedure for a RALO petition (if required) including a flow chart to help ALSes understand how the process will take place. A further explanation of the multiple round voting should be detailed, bearing in mind the possibility of RALOs needing to call upon their membership between each election round. Should ALS balloting by RALOs not be possible for each voting round, this should be explained as soon as possible in order for RALOs to devise alternative voting strategies at short notice (weighted voting being one possible solution)
Not comments about letting the design team lead.
Thank you for your consideration on this very important subject. Getting this process right is of particular importance since it has a direct impact on the legitimacy of At Large and the At Large elected Board Director. Whilst we do not dispute the fact that it is important that an At Large elected Board Director takes their seat in Cartagena, we would like the process itself to be as equitable, transparent and credible to our stakeholders.
--- end of draft statement ---
Thanks,
Adam
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org