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