AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large FY25 Strategic Priority Activities

Date: Tuesday, 19 March 2013

Time: 21:00-22:30 local time (for the time in various timezones click here)

Meeting Number: AL.gTLD/MT.0313/2

Interpretation Available: Yes (ES, FR - Simultaneous)

How can I participate in this meeting?

Comment est-ce qu'on peut participer à la téléconférence?

¿Cómo se puede participar en la teleconferencia?

Action Items: EN 

Summary Minutes:        EN        

Recording: EN, FR, ES

Transcript:      EN  , ES, FR 

AC Chat Transcript:      EN        

Adobe Connect Meeting Room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/alac

 

EN:

Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Ron Sherwood, Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Gordon Chillcott, Roberto Gaetano, Allan Skuce, Garth Bruen, Jordi Iparraguirre, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Eduardo Diaz, Sandra Hoferichter, Evan Leibovitch, Wolf Ludwig, Glenn McKnight, Avri Doria, Adrian Carballo

FR: none

ES: Jose Arce, Natalia Enciso, Aida Noblia, Alberto Soto, Johnny Laureano

Apologies: Holly Raiche, Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Yaovi Atohoun, Dev Anand Teelucksingh

Staff: Matt Ashtiani, Heidi Ullrich, Gisella Gruber, Silvia Vivanco

Interpreters: ES: Veronica and David & , FR: Claire and Camila


 

Agenda:

 

  1. Welcome and Introduction (Olivier Crepin-Leblond) - 5 mins

  2. Roll Call (Staff) - 3 mins

  3. Review of Revised RoPs (Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Alan Greenberg) - 15 mins

    1. See: Draft ALAC RoP - v64

  4. Review of Comments Received (Alan Greenberg) - 15 mins

  5. Questions and Answers (Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Alan Greenberg) - 15 mins

  6. Next Steps (Olivier Crepin-Leblond) - 7 mins

 

  • No labels

7 Comments

  1. Rinalia Abdul Rahim

    I wish to commend Alan Greenberg and the Drafting Teams for having done an outstanding job of reviewing the ALAC Rules of Procedure and for developing the revised version of the RoP for the ALAC's consideration and approval.  I have reviewed multiple versions of this document extensively.  The final version has my full support.

     

    Sincerely,

     

    Rinalia Abdul Rahim

  2. Alan Greenberg

    It dawns on me that there may be cases, such as the recent vote on gTLD application objection votes, where the ALAC may want to ensure that a larger percentage of the ALAC is required to pass a motion than is normally required. Perhaps an absolute majority of the ALAC (instead of a majority of those voting), or perhaps a 2/3 super-majority (super-majority). To allow for that, I propose the we add the following paragraph inserted after 11.2.2

    The ALAC may decide that, for a specific vote, a different threshold be required for a vote to be successful, but in no case shall the threshold be lower than the normal threshold specified in Paragraph 11.2.1.

    1. Anonymous

      Agreed.

      1. Rinalia Abdul Rahim

        Sorry.  This "agreed" was me.  Rinalia

  3. Holly Raiche

    I would like to agree with  Rinalia on two counts. I also have gone through MANY version of the RoP (nowhere near as many as Alan but then noone else has) and the final version also has my support.  I also would like to extend my appreciation to the rest of the drafting teams - and particularly to Alan - for the huge effort that has gone into the Rules.

  4. Tijani Ben Jemaa

    1.1   Individuals and accredited organizations.

    This is very confusing. It means that ALSes and Individuals are equal while this issue of individual membership hasn’t been solved at the RALOs level.

     2.    Defined terms:

    We need to define any acronym or expression that is not explicit such as Absolute Majority, Super Majority, etc. 

    5.6   When the Chair delegates running a meeting to another person: 

    Change the last sentence of the paragraph as follow: ….explicitly given to the ALAC Chair personally. 

    5.12.4   Shall the chair be empowered to exclude an ALAC member for a specified period of time, from any ALAC-related and At-Large-related activities if that ALAC member’s actions violate the Code of Conduct or are deemed to be disruptive. If the ALAC members are not included, we need to specify it; for example:  exclude for a specified period of time, an individual out of the ALAC from any ALAC-related and At-Large-related activities if that person’s actions violate the Code of Conduct or are deemed to be disruptive. 

    Also, we need to point to paragraph 13.4 instead of mentioning the code of conduct.

    5.13       To avoid duplication (5.13 and 9.8) I propose to change 5.13 by: While exerting his power mentioned in 5.12, the chair is subject to the dispositions of paragraph 9.8 of these rules. 

    5.14.4   Any other ALAC Member by mutual agreement of the ALAC Members (and delete the rest of the paragraph)

    10.3.1.5     A link to the Robert’s rules of order (edition 11) will be useful: that will answer the many questions about them.

    10.3.2         Adjunct Documents referenced by these Rules of Procedure: I think that this paragraph should be put at the end of the Rules since it is not related to the meetings only.

    Where are those adjunct documents? Since they are part of the RoP, they are necessary to their approval.

    10.5.3 & 10.5.4 Even if I agreed and still agree on the introduction of the condition to have the 5 regions on the vote to be valid, I now have a concern that a single region may stop any decision from being made if they want to be absent for the vote. Just a concern that I wanted to share with you.

    1. Alan Greenberg

      Thanks TIjani,

      Here are some initial thoughts/replies.

      1.1   Individuals and accredited organizations.

      This is very confusing. It means that ALSes and Individuals are equal while this issue of individual membership hasn’t been solved at the RALOs level.

       I will try to find some wording that addresses this.

      2.    Defined terms:

      We need to define any acronym or expression that is not explicit such as Absolute Majority, Super Majority, etc. 

      Super-majority should be defined. Will look at other terms and see where they are used.

      5.6   When the Chair delegates running a meeting to another person: 

      Change the last sentence of the paragraph as follow: ….explicitly given to the ALAC Chair personally. 

      I don't think that "personally" is right there (it implies something done in person), but I will look at better wording. It may be sufficient to simply put "ALAC Chair" in quotations.

      5.12.4   Shall the chair be empowered to exclude an ALAC member for a specified period of time, from any ALAC-related and At-Large-related activities if that ALAC member’s actions violate the Code of Conduct or are deemed to be disruptive. If the ALAC members are not included, we need to specify it; for example:  exclude for a specified period of time, an individual out of the ALAC from any ALAC-related and At-Large-related activities if that person’s actions violate the Code of Conduct or are deemed to be disruptive. 

      Also, we need to point to paragraph 13.4 instead of mentioning the code of conduct.

      Correct. I will put in the reference as I did for the reference in 5.12.1

      5.13       To avoid duplication (5.13 and 9.8) I propose to change 5.13 by: While exerting his power mentioned in 5.12, the chair is subject to the dispositions of paragraph 9.8 of these rules. 

      Legal advice on reference to the Ombudsman was relatively restrictive but I will try to find a way to eliminate the full duplication of the two sections.

      5.14.4   Any other ALAC Member by mutual agreement of the ALAC Members (and delete the rest of the paragraph)

      That won't work, because it may not be possible to get the rest of the ALAC together (in person or teleconference) to make this decision, and it is quite possible they would not agree. As discussed in the call, I will try to find some wording that required at least one other ALAC member to support anyone who is to become Chair.

      10.3.1.5     A link to the Robert’s rules of order (edition 11) will be useful: that will answer the many questions about them.

      I don't know of a practical way to do this, since the latest version is not online.

      10.3.2         Adjunct Documents referenced by these Rules of Procedure:

      I think that this paragraph should be put at the end of the Rules since it is not related to the meetings only.

      The same can be said for the entire 10.3. I will see if there is a logical place to move it which does not require too much other re-work. Even if it does'nt really fit here, it does not alter it's effect.

      Where are those adjunct documents? Since they are part of the RoP, they are necessary to their approval.

      One of them is not needed, since it is listed as something the ALAC may produce in the future (metrics and remedial action). The other two are re-works new title for ALS rules, title and minor change for Position Description, and Board selection one is a compilation of documents which we need to gather together). The motion to approve the RoP will be worded so they do not take effect until the ALAC approves all of the necessary adjunct docs (already agreed upon way forward).

      10.5.3 & 10.5.4 Even if I agreed and still agree on the introduction of the condition to have the 5 regions on the vote to be valid, I now have a concern that a single region may stop any decision from being made if they want to be absent for the vote. Just a concern that I wanted to share with you.

      That was my main concern from the start, and I still dislike it for that reason. The last thing that we want to do is give a region a veto, and that is what it could do. However, the rules are worded so that impact is not onerous. A "consensus" decision can be stopped by a region not being present, but in that case, the ALAC can revert to a formal vote. According to 10.5.4, if the decision is very urgent, and must be made immediately, the "all region" rule does not apply. For non-urgent vote, the vote can be prolonged, and according 10.5.2, all regions are deemed to be present.

      However, on re-reading, I now see that a word is missing from 10.5.23. It should read "For votes taken electronically OR over a period of time..."