This wiki page has been created for the following purposes:
- to receive comments on the Draft NARALO Rules of Procedures (ROPs) for the revision dated August 2022
- to record all proceedings related to comments received and results from the voting period for approval
The timeline that will be followed to approve the revised ROPs is as follows:
| Purpose | Period |
|---|---|
| Comments* | August 18-31, 2022 |
| Approval** | September 5-9, 2022 |
*Include comments in the comment section below
**Note: according to the Rules of Procedure, 9.1 These Rules of Procedure may be amended at any time by an affirmative vote of not less than seventy percent (70%) of the eligible voting representatives of the Membership.
Revision includes:
- Overall cleanup and clarification;
- Changes to address minor problems that have arisen since the ROPs were adopted;
- The incorporation of ALS criteria and expectations in support of the ALS Mobilization Report (supporting recommendations of the 2nd At-Large Review), approved by the ALAC in 2020;
- Incorporation of the ALAC Individual member Mobilization Report (supporting recommendations of the 2nd At-Large Review), approved by the ALAC in 2021;
- Extending from 2 to 3, the number of consecutive terms an ALAC Member can serve.
Redline Document | Clean Document | Clean with Line Numbers |
|---|---|---|
Drafting team:
- Alan Greenberg
- Eduardo Diaz
- Glenn Mcknight
- Greg Shatan
- John More
- Judith Hellerstein
33 Comments
Silvia Vivanco
Dear NARALO members,
Please include comments in this section of this wiki page.
Alfredo Calderon
Page 1: “General Assembly” – an in-person meeting of the NARALO Membership. They are typically held every 2-3 years.
This seems to imply that a virtual General Assembly is not an option in the event that more than 3 years have passed since the previous GA. <Comment>Similar to what happened after 2017 New Orleans NARALO GA where the Covid-19 pandemia and ICANN did not allow travel. <Comment>
Bill Jouris
Just for completeness, we might want to mention that hybrid meeting could be an option as well.
Alan Greenberg
Good idea.
Alan Greenberg
The word "typically" covers this. It would also cover the perhaps more common situation of insufficient funds to support an in-person meeting.
Alfredo Calderon
Page 4: 4.2 The Membership shall generally meet at least annually either online or in person to
review the year in review report and to conduct any other business as deemed necessary.
<Comment> Check hyphenation.<Comment>
The Membership shall generally meet at least annually either online or in-person to review the year-in-review report and to conduct any other business as deemed necessary.
Alan Greenberg
Got it. Thanks.
Alfredo Calderon
6.1.2 Candidates for office may be an Individual Member or a member of an ALS, and
must be residents of North America. The Chair and Secretariat may run for the other
office during their term without having to resign until their successful election. A special
election for the open position shall be as soon as practicable in accordance with the
procedures as stated in Section 6 below, except for the timing with the ICANN General Annual
Meeting.
Alan Greenberg
Alfredo Calderon
6.4.2 The acceptance period shall generally be open for at least seven (7) days.
The phrase "at least seven (7) days" opens the window for the possibility of an extending the acceptance period.
<Question>Is it required that all nominees "accept or refuse" their nomination within the time period indicated? <Question>
If that is the case, I would suggest → The acceptance period shall generally be open for
at leastseven (7) working days.Alan Greenberg
This is an instruction to Staff and RALO leadership and ensures that there is sufficient time for a nominated person to consider whether they want to do it or not, and potentially to consult with their management if it could impact their work. It also allows for a longer period, perhaps to extend over a holiday period.
One calendar week is what has been used in At-Large pretty much forever. Is there a reason to change it?
Glenn McKnight
Thanks Alfredo for good catches on the ROP revisions.
My question is back to staff on who will incorporate the changes from the comments section?
Alan Greenberg
I did all of the editing for this revision and am happy to incorporate things raised here.
Bill Jouris
Page 1, Definitions, Active status: change "meetings" to "meeting"
Alan Greenberg
Bill Jouris
Page 4, 3.3: Perhaps my memory is faulty. But I'm not recalling such an appointment process occurring. Have I missed something?
Alan Greenberg
Your memory is probably not faulty, but you have only been around for a few years.
In the past it has been done sporadically, with us often forgetting until an election is coming up or when either Silvia or I remembered to do it. When we were "reminded" before the recent election, in consultation with staff and RALO leadership, we decided to keep the current rep (me!) until after the AGM, and then hold a formal election.
Bill Jouris
I'm new, but I'm not THAT new. If we can go 4-5 years without having an election, how representative are those "representatives"?
For that matter, do we really have a need for them? My recollection of our last election is that everybody, not just the representatives, could vote for the new officers. And things went along just fine. Either those election procedures were problematic, or maybe we could just drop the whole representative idea.
Alan Greenberg
The last selection was in April 2018 and selected me as the representative and Javier Rua-Jovet (see https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=6919382GKGT3AJYgkXJJsXrP2i).
The role of the "representative" is minimal. Specifically, to vote on behalf of all individual members when there is an election. This is a DIRECTED vote based on the input from individual members (these days we often use a BigPulse vote, and that is what you voted in for the last election). The representative's only discretion is in the case of a tie in the input received from the other individual members (which I don't recall ever happening).
To be clear, for each election, there are TWO BigPulse votes, one for the individual members which ends a day before the other main vote.
The rules were revised this time in light of past experience and the understanding that we may not need to do a new selection every year (but allowing for one if it is desired).
Bill Jouris
Just to be clear, this is some kind of ALAC-wide election? Because, in this year's NARALO election, we all got to vote.
That being the case, perhaps the text could be phrased to make clearer what we are talking about.
Alan Greenberg
Ahh, Now I see the problem. Somehow in the 2017 revision, how the Indiv Rep exercises his/her responsibilities got lost.
We are not talking about an ALAC/At-Large wide election, but one within NARALO. Each ALS has one vote, and all of the individual members together have a vote. This latter vote is exercised in accordance with the views expressed by the individual members (typically by a vote held among those members).
I have added a sentence to 3.3: The Individual Member representative casts votes in NARALO elections in accordance with the views expressed by Individual Members (through a poll of other suitable method).
Bill Jouris
Page 1, ALS Member: I think this would be clearer if it was phrased as "Member ALS" rather than "ALS Member". The latter suggests, to my mind, some individual who is a member of an ALS, rather than the ALS as a whole.
Alan Greenberg
I tend to agree. Not sure how extensive a change this would be, but I will make a note to see if this can be done with minimal upheaval.
Bill Jouris
Page 7, 6.5.1: Add comma after "acclamation"
Alan Greenberg
I'm not sure that is needed, but I have added it!
Bill Jouris
Page 8, 7.3, last sentence: it isn't clear whether we are making available the overall statistics of NARALO members, or the metrics of individual members (or member ALSs?).
Also, separate from this document, it would be nice if there was some obvious way for member metrics to be located. It's nice that they are public, but if they are hard to find it rather reduces the utility.
Alan Greenberg
I think that the intent was that all metrics indeed be available. But the "subject to" could reduce that. And for individuals probably requires a release.
Should we actually get to the stage of doing this, I agree that it should not be buried...
Bill Jouris
Page 10, 8.8: I would change "in the case of" to "rather than"
Alan Greenberg
Bill Jouris
Page 14, 3: change "keep their NARALO informed" to "keep NARALO informed"
Alan Greenberg
The "their" was part of "their RALO" in the At-Large-wide document. It can just be omitted here as we generally don't use "the" when referring to NARALO (as we would if we spelled out the acronym).
Bill Jouris
Page 16, first sentence: change "The NARALO membership were primarily developed..." to "The NARALO membership standards were primarily developed..."
Alan Greenberg