<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [At-Large] Rules of procedure, draft 2



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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>www.alac.icann.org
>www.icannalac.org


_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

www.alac.icann.org
www.icannalac.org