Sorry to be responding to some of this so long after the questions were posted, but I just returned from holiday + being ill. To answer the question: There are currently no procedures for decertification of an ALS by ALAC, though as noted the Bylaws of ICANN do provide for the ability of the ALAC to create such and make use of them. On 16/04/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
Luc Faubert wrote: "The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile".
Opposed to such powers in the hands of the Chair. The ICANN bylaws provide for the possibility of ALS decertification:
"Decisions to certify or de-certify an At-Large Structure shall require a 2/3 vote of all of the members of the ALAC and shall be subject to review according to procedures established by the Board."
We should have the ALAC publish these decertification procedures. I, for one, certainly haven't seen them anywhere. Nick, can you arrange for these procedures to be published?
--- Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Luc Faubert wrote:
"The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile".
Absolutely opposed, to anything requiring a judgement call.
I am accountable to my group's membership for the quality of our participation -- not to ICANN, and certainly not to this sub-group that -- so far -- can't demonstrate competence at even determining a meeting site (a month before the meeting is supposed to take place!).
Am I the only one to see the irony of a group whose participants complain about the arbitrariness of ICANN staff power, yet have no problem assigning similarly arbitrary authority to the group itself? Two wrongs do NOT make a right.
Quanitify what you consider "worthwhile" or leave such a provision out. If you can't quanitify it, I can't trust it.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
--- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
I suggest: 1) placing these decertifying procedures in the MOU. 2) either a) specifying the ways which individuals are represented in ALAC or b) removing individuals from the membership of ALAC* in the proposed MOU. Other than that, the MOU seems fine with me. *I'm not trying to un-involve the individuals from the ALAC, it just seems that they can fit into an ALS in some way. There has been discussion as to how we certify an individual, how to make sure there are not multiple votes, etc. It just seems this is a weakness of the procedures. Thanks, Randy Glass A@L On 4/30/07, Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart@icann.org> wrote:
Sorry to be responding to some of this so long after the questions were posted, but I just returned from holiday + being ill.
To answer the question: There are currently no procedures for decertification of an ALS by ALAC, though as noted the Bylaws of ICANN do provide for the ability of the ALAC to create such and make use of them.
On 16/04/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
Luc Faubert wrote: "The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile".
Opposed to such powers in the hands of the Chair. The ICANN bylaws provide for the possibility of ALS decertification:
"Decisions to certify or de-certify an At-Large Structure shall require a 2/3 vote of all of the members of the ALAC and shall be subject to review according to procedures established by the Board."
We should have the ALAC publish these decertification procedures. I, for one, certainly haven't seen them anywhere. Nick, can you arrange for these procedures to be published?
--- Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Luc Faubert wrote:
"The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile".
Absolutely opposed, to anything requiring a judgement call.
I am accountable to my group's membership for the quality of our participation -- not to ICANN, and certainly not to this sub-group that -- so far -- can't demonstrate competence at even determining a meeting site (a month before the meeting is supposed to take place!).
Am I the only one to see the irony of a group whose participants complain about the arbitrariness of ICANN staff power, yet have no problem assigning similarly arbitrary authority to the group itself? Two wrongs do NOT make a right.
Quanitify what you consider "worthwhile" or leave such a provision out. If you can't quanitify it, I can't trust it.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
--- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
-- -- Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
Re decertification, There's this http://www.alac.icann.org/framework.htm ... IV. Procedures for Board review of ALAC certification decisions: ALAC decisions to certify or de-certify an At-Large Structure are subject to review according to procedures to be established by the Board. The ALAC proposes that review procedures be established, as proposed below: 1. A request for review of an ALAC decision to certify or de-certify an ALS would be required to be filed within 60 days after the ALAC posts notice of the action on its web site. Requests for review would be submitted by email to xxxxxx. No particular form is required, but requesting parties would include at least the following information: 2. name, address, and contact information for the requesting party (including postal and email addresses); 3. the specific action for which review is sought; 4. the date of the action; 5. the facts supporting the request for review; 6. the grounds on which the Board should conduct its review; and 7. any documents the requesting party wishes to submit in support of its request. The ICANN Board will appoint three of its Directors to consider such requests and conduct the reviews. The Board appointed review group will notify the ALAC of the request for review. The review group may request additional information from all parties involved in the review, as well as other sources. Requests for review and the Board review group's activities and decisions will be made public on the ICANN website. The review group may, in its discretion, grant a party's request to keep certain information confidential. For any matters that the review group determines not to disclose, the review group's decision will describe in general terms the nature of the information and the reason for nondisclosure. The review group will endeavor to complete its work and issue its final decision within 30 days of the filing of the request; its decision will be made public on the ICANN web site. To protect against abuse of the review process, a request for review may be dismissed by the review group where it is frivolous, non-substantive, or otherwise abusive....
participants (3)
-
Jean Armour Polly -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
RJGlass | America＠Large