Rule(s)
- 1.1 The ALAC shall be comprised of two individuals elected by each of the RALOs as well as one individual per region as selected by the NomCom.
- 1.2 Individuals representing themselves or other organizations who have participated in the work of an accredited ALS may participate in the work of the ALAC as observers subject to Rule 16
- 1.3 The right to vote in the ALAC is reserved for the representatives per Rule 1.1
22 Comments
Sergio Salinas Porto
1.1 Creo que sería muy bueno poder contar con suplentes de los Alac Member como funcionan los congresos de muchos paises. Los suplentes solo podrían entrar en funciones cuando el Alac Member titular haya pedido licencia o esté ausente por algunas circunstancias que se deben especificar. El fundamento es que esto permitiría tener "siempre" la representación "perfecta" (en cuanto a lo numérico y en cuanto a la expresión de representatividad) de los RALOs"
1.2 La representación debería estar sujeta a representantes de organizaciones (sujeto Colectivo organizado) y no de personas sin representación alguna (sujeto individual aislado).
1.3 Debería prever la figura de los suplentes.
Darlene Thompson
Google Translate:
1.1 It would be very good to have alternate Alac Member of Congress as the work of many countries. Alternates could only take over when the owner has requested Member Alac license or is absent for some circumstances to be specified. The rationale is that this would have "always" representation "perfect" (in terms of the numerical and in terms of expression of representative) of the RALOs "
1.2 The representation should be subject to representatives of organizations (organized collective subject) rather than people without representation (isolated individual subject).
Figure 1.3 should provide for alternate members.
Matt Ashtiani
Submitted on behalf of Maureen Hilyard
ALAC Rules of Procedure Working Group - RULE 1 - DELEGATES Workspace
Rule(s)
1.2 sounds a little confusing. In order to have observer status, individuals must be members of an accredited ALS? Or can they represent themselves?
Alan Greenberg
I strongly suggest that we remove all references to the word "delegate". It is a carry-over from the UN rules and has only served to confuse. We call ALAC members "member". So should the rules.
1.2 is particularly confusing. It starts by saying that pretty much anyone in At-Large can participate in an ALAC meeting, But adds the proviso that it is subject to Rule 16 which says that it is all up to the Chair. Rule 16 also adds the term "observer" (I think undefined). Why not just say that non-members may participate subject to Chair approval and be silent as to the details. If we want more clarity here, say that for any meeting, the chair may grant unrestricted speaking rights, which could address issues of Liaisons, RALO chairs, etc.
Regarding voting, I would suggest that we adopt procedures saying that for any meeting, an ALAC member who will not be present can give thier vote to another ALAC member. I am less in favour or a non-member taking the place of a missing member, but it is something that we should consider.
If a vote is given to another ALAC member, it could be either directed (that is, the person is told how to vote on any issue known ahead of time) or at the person's discretion.
The GNSO Operating Procedures go into length on a number of remedies for absences and might want to be consulted as one way of addressing the issues. The GNSO also allows for voice votes to be extended to allow those who are not present to vote electronically on certain crucial issues (such as PDP recommendations) where a full vote is highly desirable.
Alan Greenberg
To repeat the new idea I raised in the meeting on May 7:
I suggest that with respect to Alternates we break the function up into two sections:
1. Speaking rights: An ALAC member who cannot participate in a meeting (or perhaps part of one) may designate any other person as their replacement for the purposes of discussion. That person should be given speaking rights equivalent to a full ALAC member (and this must be codified in Rule 16 or wherever that topic ends up).
2. Voting rights: An ALAC member who cannot participate in an in-person vote (or perhaps an electronic vote as well??) may give their vote(s) (ie a proxy) to another ALAC member. That member may likely be from their own region, but there is no requirement for that. To the extent that the content of motions are known ahead of time, the proxy-giver (not sure if that is a word, but hopefully the intent is understood) may instruct the proxy-receiver how to vote or general guidance in determining the vote and the receiver is honour bound to follow those instructions. If no guidance is provided, the giver may instruct the receiver to either not vote, or to vote based on their own beliefs.
Another alternative for voting is to give the absent votes 1 or two days (as allowed by the specific situation or by rule here) to cast a vote before the tally is finalized.
One question that should be explicitly addressed is whether any of these remedies can be used when voting on personnel selection votes. My inclination is to say yes, they are valid for all classes of vote.
Rationale:
What I am proposing will work for all ALAC members instead of just those appointed by RALOs, and I believe it is crucial that we have uniform rules and not create different classes of ALAC members. I also feel that it is crucial that for votes (and particularly for votes that relate to some Bylaw mandated function, that there be no opportunity for anyone to say an ALAC vote was not valid because non-ALAC member participated.
With regard to extended outages, I feel that this MUST be an issue addressed on a one-by-one case and we should have no rule saying that someone MUST resign (or be deemed to have resigned) based on non-availability.
Alan Greenberg
One other issue that I briefly mentioned in the May 7 meeting was whether the ALAC should institute term limits. Currently some (or all??) RALOs have consecutive term limits. I am not sure if any have life-time term limits. There are no limits for NomCom appointees. Do we want any?
My personal opinion is that if the appointer feels that they and the ALAC are being well served, we should have no additional limits over what is already in place.
Alan Greenberg
On the May 28 WG teleconference, I was asked to provide the history of the ExCom.
The ExComm came into de facto existence as the group of officers who talked to each other, some time after Cheryl was selected as ALAC Chair in late 2007. The mailing list started in May 2008.
Later in 2008 I drafted a series of motions to formalize the existing group, and then expand it to include all five regions (either by skill or luck, the exiting officers, Chair, two Vice Chairs and Raporteur represented four of the five regions).
The motions were approved at the ALAC meeting of 25 November, 2008. The summary minutes can be found at Summary Minutes 25 November 2008. I will reproduce the motions here for clarity.
1st Motion. Presented by A Greenberg, seconded by S Bachollet
Whereas the ALAC has had a de facto an Executive Committee composed of ALAC Officers for the past year;
Whereas, it is at times necessary for the ALAC to take action without sufficient time to formally engage the entire ALAC and hold a vote;
Therefore I move that:
The ALAC create a 4-member Executive Committee composed of the four ALAC Officers. Until such time as a more refined specification be defined, the Executive Committee shall have no powers other than those explicitly granted by the ALAC, save that in urgent situations, the Executive Committee may make decisions on behalf of the ALAC, such decisions communicated to the ALAC prior to or at the time of decision, and to be ratified at the next ALAC meeting.
2nd Motion. Presented by A Greenberg, seconded by A Peake
Whereas last year's de facto Executive Committee included Officers from four or the five ICANN regions;
Whereas this present year's Officers represent four of the five ICANN regions;
Whereas in keeping with ALAC and ICANN principles, it is felt that there is a benefit in all five regions participating in an Executive Committee;
Therefore I move that:
1. The ALAC expand the Executive Committee to five people. The Executive Committee shall be composed of the four ALAC Officers and one additional ALAC member.
2. The ALAC redefine the two positions of Vice-Chair and the position of Rapporteur, and the associated voting processes to ensure that the Chair, the two Vice-Chairs, and the Rapporteur all represent different ICANN regions, the detailed Rules of Procedures to be approved prior to the 2009 Officer elections;
3. Following the election of the four officers, the ALAC shall nominate and elect an ALAC member from the as-yet un-represented ICANN region to the fifth Executive Committee position.
There were 13 ALAC members present at the meeting, but only 11 by the time these motions came to a vote. 9 voted in favour, 2 against, and there were 2 abstentions for both motions (all documented in the Summary Minutes pointed to above).
I have either been part of the ExComm since that time or worked closely with it, and my belief is that it has functioned according to the intent of these principals. I say the intent, because the ExComm has in fact made many decisions on behalf of the ALAC, but virtually all of these were of no strategic import but rather decisions such as whether to pursue statements on an particular ICANN comment period, or on how to organize meetings of briefings. Virtually all of these decision could have been reversed in there had been any interest within the ALAC in doing so, but that very rarely if ever happened, indicating such decisions were being taken with the tacit support of the ALAC.
I would suggest that when we draft the formal language within the RoP, we attempt to have the rules describe what has worked effectively now for nearly 4 years.
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
As things currently stand, the ExCom has no authority and mandate to make decisions for the ALAC under the current Rules of Procedure. Even if majority of the ALAC members voted in favour of the Motion it is void ab initio even if the reasons for establishing it had merit. The ALAC is bound by the RoP as it is established by the RoP.
The Rules of Procedure should have been amended to provide for the ExCom and all the corporate governance implications that stem from that. This can still be done
At the recent Prague Meeting, ICANN 45 where ExCom members emphasised their right to be heard and given priority over ordinary ALAC members primarily on the basis that they are ExCom raises the issue of locus. Does an ordinary ALAC member have speaking rights in an ExCom meeting? In other words does the ALAC member have locus standii?
What are the rules surrounding ExCom? In this instance, the Rules of Procedures governs the At Large and ALAC included. What rules within the RoP are applicable to the ExCom? The thing mentioned within the RoP that is remotely relevant is the composition of the ALAC.
The issue of speaking rights within an ExCom meeting becomes a governance issue. This of course prompts a discussion that had already started when Group 1 presented the illustrations of the various perceived governance models within At Large.
I am not averse to efficiency and to the creation of committees but it should have a proper basis and legitimacy within the At Large Ecosystem. I know people keep harping on about how they don't like "procedures" but they exist primarily to address confusion and ambiguity so there should also be provisions on meeting guidelines and speaking rights etc.
Holly Raiche
While this is under Rule 1 - Delegates, this should really be seen as comments on the first heading we agreed upon - Definitions and Structure
I have already commented on the definitions. What should go in this heading is:
Structure:
ALAC - its composition and what it does
Composition of ALAC - this is where we use the term member - defined as an individual nominated by a RALO - if that is what we agree upon, plus individuals nominated by the NomCom.
In here, we could put what the Chair and Vice Chairs do (Maybe include Rule 12 since the duties of the Chair go beyond simply procedures at meetings)
Executive Committee - what it is and does
Liaisons - (combining relevant bits from rules 4-6)
Other appointments: This would be the final section in structure - combining the relevant rules from Rules 7-8.
On filing a statement of interest - which is what we are now calling it - make this a general rule for anyone with this obligation
We can either have rules on the selection of ALAC/ExCom/Liaisons all together, or include rules on elegibility and selection under each of the headings (I think that would be neater)
And a question - since this is about structure and selection, why not include selection of an At-Large Board member here?
Sergio Salinas Porto
Para mi, el miembro de ALAC es "un individuo designado por su RALO para llevar la voz de este (el RALO) a ALAC" es un individuo representando a un conjunto de organizaciones, nucleadas en un Región y no un individuo aislado. Eso debe de quedar muy claro en nuestras reglas.
Jacqueline Morris
Might have a problem with NARALO, they allow individual or unaffiliated members.
Sergio Salinas Porto
Por lo que escuche en la reunión de Praga este tema en NARALO esta solucionado o en camino de solucionarse a partir de la inclusión de sus miembros individuales en una "Especie de ALS", por eso puse esto así. Hago hincapié en lo de individual, por que entiendo que el miembro de ALAC tiene una carga de representación plural y no debe de representación a si mismo.
Jacqueline Morris
Given that the Prague meeting was not set up for remote participation for the sub-groups, and no notes were posted, those of us with other responsibilities and meetings to attend (I was in NomCom) did not get this private info. Thanks for updating me.
Darlene Thompson
I very much agree with Sergio, there. I would also think that this should apply to liaisons, as well.
Darlene Thompson
Yes but these are ALAC rules of procedure, not RALO rules of procedures, so I can't see how this could have any bearing on Naralo's own rules. Or am I missing something?
Jacqueline Morris
well, unless I totally got a mis-translation, the ddefinition of "member of ALAC" as a person who represents a group/ALS would preclude a NARALO individual member from being seated as a member of ALAC.
My translation was
"For me, a member of ALAC is "an individual designated by his/her RALO to take the voice of this (the RALO) to ALAC" is an individual representing a group of organisations, situated in a Region, and not an isolated individual. This has to be made very clear in our rules"
This definition, as I translated it, also leaves out the ICANN by-law mandated 1/3 of the ALAC that is appointed by the NomCom.
The definition of ALAC members is in the ICANN by-laws, and personally, I think we should just use what is there and not re-visit the entire definition.
Darlene Thompson
Hi Jacqueline,
I don't see that translation at all. The "individual is designated by his/her RALO" - this makes NO mention of ALSs. I think Sergio's point is that this person must represent the ideals of the entire region, not just his/her personal beliefs.
Jacqueline Morris
I didn't read it your way at all, but I can see the other interpretation now you've brought it up.
But, given that Sergio already indicated that in the Prague meeting it worked out by virtue of the "virtual ALS" anyway, it's a moot point.
More important is that it leaves out the NomCom appointees in the proposed definition of "ALAC member", given that NomCom appointees are particularly appointed for their personal views, based on their regional experience as natives or long term residents, not as representatives of the region.
Jacqueline Morris
There's a wiki space for elections etc, I believe. This my be overlap. Should be discussed in the committee of the whole.
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
Note: As we are reviewing and drafting this section, namely Sergio, Sylvia, Yaovi and myself, we are monitoring and ensuring that all discussions around this bit is captured/documented hence copying the details of the discussions from the ALAC mailing list on the matter into this Wiki as this is the intended Workspace. Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
This is Part 1:
Jean Jacques Subrenat contribution via his email to the ALAC mailing list on June 30, 2012
Dear Olivier & Colleagues,
at the end of today's ExeCom meeting, under AOB, Olivier kindly gave me
the opportunity to present some views on ALAC in an evolving ICANN. *
Background & rationale
At the age of 10, ALAC naturally shares many characteristics with its
parent, ICANN. One striking characteristic is the pioneer spirit in
approaching major challenges and more routine work alike.
Times are changing. Youth want to be included. Though faulty, the new gTLD
programme is about to provide a sizeable increase in ICANN revenue, the
allocation of which has not yet been prioritized according to clear
principles. In some areas, project overlay and the constraints of PDP are
making us susceptible to burnout. And the concerns of the wider community
are still not in focus in our house, in which terms like globalization and
the public interest ring empty in the large corridors.
Change in ICANN is coming. The international dimension of ICANN will
impose its logic, even without the full consent of this corporation.
Echelons of decision will be simplified, because failing to accomplish this
would push our structures into irrelevance. The new CEO seems committed to
accomplishing tasks begun, before being drawn into new areas.*
The ALAC should seize this moment to examine its efficiency, and therefore
its structures. My proposal is based on a few simple ideas whose
implementation has proven efficient elsewhere.*
Clear, committed lines of responsibility. *
ALAC's tasks can be handled under three main lines. Each line would be led
by a Vice Chair, and each member would be required to join at least one of
the three lines:*
1) Community, Outreach, Communication*
2) Policy, Process, Legal*
3) Finance, administration*
Naturally, this would remain under the overall guidance of the Chair,
whose responsibilities would not change, but he/she would no longer be
expected to accept being constantly submerged. Support Staff, a crucial
element for ALAC, would not require more people, at least in the first
stage.
Why 3 Vice Chairs? Why not 5, which would make regional representation
comfortable? I believe that the challenges facing ALAC are well beyond the
pale of regions, and require both a holistic approach and equal engagement
from all. My proposal is to concentrate on the efficiency of our
structures, rather than on representation, as the latter is ensured at
other levels.
This is, in a few lines, what motivated my brief presentation this morning
at the end of the ExeCom meeting. I'm looking forward to your comments.
Best regards,
Jean-Jacques.
Response from Carlton Samuels on June 30, 2012 via email to ALAC Mailing List
Dear Jean-Jacques:
Thanks for this note. I believe there is much wisdom here and a lot of
grist for the mill. The rationale you provide is incontestable. So I'm
inclined to support both the principles as well as the solution framework.
I suggest that this proposal be discussed at the next ALAC meeting with a
view that some of the thoughts here be adopted in the ALAC Rop WG channel
for further discussion.
Best,
- Carlton
Response from Fouad Bajwa on June 30, 2012 via email to the ALAC Mailing List
As an observer with no say in this, though I support many of the
suggestions, I do not support 5 Vice Chairs for ALAC. There should be just
one vice chair to help the chair or two to sit in on his behalf if anything
arises.
Why have so many vice chairs when there are reps to the alac from the
ralos. They are already helping the chair. You can have more reps on the
alac if the work increases. Creating more positions in alac should reflect
ralo needs and not a new organizational structure on the top to honour
people.
Strengthen ralo participation and alac would appear evolving if you see
ralo leaders rising up to share the alac burden, not the other way around.
vice chairs from ralos should then be allowed to participate in alac work
if there is too much burden. Have the vice chairs from ralos come in as
additional vice chairs to alac should the need arise but 5 vice chairs in
alac is out of the question and gives undue authority to members to male
public statements without following the bottom up process. No more
structures should be made. The new gtlds do not call for more structures,
they call for efficiency while sustaining transparency. Resolve the process
obstacles and you will he happy without more structures.
If our regional reps made such suggestions for new vice chairs without
discussing with their ralo then I will be disappointed.
Response to Carlton and Fouad by Jean-Jacques on June 30, 2012 via email
This is to follow up on comments by Carlton and Fouad:
Dear Carlton,
thanks for supporting the general idea.*
You suggest this be discussed at the next ALAC meeting, and taken to the
ALAC RoP WG: I agree. As I'm not a member of the RoP WG, I would appreciate
being associated with its work if my proposal is taken up.*
Dear Fouad,*
thank you for your support.
Number of Vice Chairs: I do not hold any religious belief about this. I
say no to 5 because representation of regions is not the point here. I put
forward the figure 3 because, IMO, the main tasks of ALAC fit into 3
categories.
You suggest entrusting these 3 lines of responsibility to RALO
representatives, and not to ALAC members. This requires legal advice on
whether the two solutions are really equivalent (voting rights, etc.).
Response by Fouad Bajwa on June 30, 2012 via email to ALAC mailing list
Dear JJS,
I believe we are At-Large and not extra ordinary. Why not allow the Chair
to appoint Special Advisors instead of so many Vice Chairs should the Chair
require it on adhoc basis and that ends as soon as the task ends.
Even appointing more Vice Chairs would be a legal concern and would require
equal consensual deliberation.
In today's world flatter organizations achieve more because of remote
dispersion but 24/7 Internet based availability. Highly structured
organizations are a vision and bureaucracies of the past and are crumbling.
ALAC has wonderfully pragmatic and ethically sound members from my POV and
they do not need additional VP posts as such posts are to boast and do not
add to the great meaningful contributions they make.
ALAC would sound like a bank with such designations in a large number and
it feels that we want to make another structured ICANN in ICANN.
Though I do not know the fine print in details of what provoked such a
motivation but WG and their Chairs work so make 3 or more alac WGs with 3
or more Chairs.
You should look at the ICANN board. There is one Chair with the rest as
members of the board where as the board members chair a number of board
committee.
Let us be At-Large and not Extraordinarily Structured.
Jacqueline Morris
Some of these rules are in the ICANN bylaws, an unless we want to go through that process to change them, we should not even restate, but simply refer to those.
For example - definition of an ALAC member:
From the ICANN Bylaws - ARTICLE XI, Sec 2.4.b
http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#XI
The ALAC shall consist of (i) two members selected by each of the Regional At-Large Organizations ("RALOs") established according to paragraph 4(g) of this Section, and (ii) five members selected by the Nominating Committee. The five members selected by the Nominating Committee shall include one citizen of a country within each of the five Geographic Regions established according to Section 5 of Article VI.
So that is clear, and ALAC RoP cannot override ICANN Bylaws.
Eduardo Diaz
Agree with Jaqueline.