RE: [At-Large] Rules of procedure, draft 2
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
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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: alac-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:alac-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Thomas Roessler
> Sent: 11 April 2007 18:34
> To: Vittorio Bertola
> Cc: alac@xxxxxxxxx
> 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