This workspace has been created for use by the At-Large Meetings and Administration Drafting Team (MADT) to prepare draft text on the revision of the ALAC Rules of Procedure. The expectation is that from this drafting a new set of Rules of Procedure (RoPs) or Operating Principals (OPs) for ALAC will be created, adopted/endorsed and in use from end 2012.
The purpose of this workspace is to offer a space where the revised rules are worked on in pre-consensus mode during and between formal meetings of the Drafting Team.
Current draft in WORD FORMAT and PDF.
Redline version in WORD FORMAT and PDF.
These formats include better formatting and specific sections highlighted.
Older versions can be found under TOOLS/ATTACHMENTS
RoP-Section-C1-Draft-v19
Section C: Meetings and Administration
1. ALAC Meetings
1.1. ALAC meetings may be face-to-face or teleconferences. Most face-to-face meetings also have teleconference capabilities for those who cannot attend in person.
1.2. Classification of ALAC meeting
1.2.1. Regular Meetings
1.2.1.1. Scheduled at times as agreed upon by the ALAC.
1.2.1.2. Requires advance notice of at least one (1) week.
1.2.1.3. By explicit action of the ALAC, notice may be waived.
1.2.1.4. Requires Quorum to begin. The requirement for Quorum may be waived by the Chair. Such decision does not alter the requirement for a meeting to be quorate at the time any formal decision is taken.
1.2.1.5. For face-to-face meetings (typically held in conjunction with ICANN meetings), a meeting can be temporarily halted and reconvened at a later time by agreement of the ALAC. Upon re-convening, Quorum is once again required to begin.
1.2.2. Annual General Meeting (AGM)
1.2.2.1. A Regular meeting held in conjunction with the ICANN Annual General Meeting
1.2.3. Urgent Meetings
1.2.3.1. May be called by the ALAC Chair at any time, possibly on short notice.
1.2.3.2. Requires Quorum to begin.
1.2.3.3. The only Motion that an Urgent Meeting can approve is to give the Urgent Meeting the same rights as a Regular Meeting. If such a decision by Consensus is not unanimous, a formal vote must be taken.
1.2.4. Special Meetings
1.2.4.1. May be called at the request of any four (4) ALAC Members.
1.2.4.2. Requires a minimum notice of one (1) week.
1.2.4.3. Requires Quorum to begin.
1.2.4.4. Once convened, has the same status as a Regular meeting.
1.3. Meeting Rules
1.3.1. ALAC meetings are run based on the following authorities in decreasing priority
1.3.1.1. ICANN Bylaws
1.3.1.2. These ALAC Rules of Procedure
1.3.1.3. Decisions of the ALAC including Rules of Procedure Adjunct Documents (see section 1.3.2).
1.3.1.4. Rulings of the Chair
1.3.1.5. Robert`s Rules of Order, 11th Edition.
1.3.1.6. Should there be conflicts within any single category above which are not explicitly addressed within that category, the Chair shall rule on which takes precedence.
1.3.2. Adjunct Documents referenced by these Rules of Procedure.
1.3.2.1. RoP-Adjunct-01 - Position Description for ALAC Members, Liaisons and Appointees
1.3.2.2. RoP-Adjunct-02 - Metrics and Remedial Actions for ALAC Members, Liaisons and Appointees
1.3.2.3. RoP-Adjunct-03 - At-Large Board Member Selection Implementation
1.4. Agenda
1.4.1. All meetings should have an agenda, preferably published ahead of time identifying the topics to be covered in the meeting as well as the projected time to be allowed for each item.
1.4.2. A meeting may have a “Consent Agenda” which will include Motions which are deemed to not require further discussion and will be adopted by consensus or vote as a single item.
1.4.2.1. Items within the consent agenda will be deemed to have been moved by the Chair and seconded by a Vice-Chair as identified in the Consent Agenda.
1.4.2.2. Any ALAC Member may request that a specific item from the Consent Agenda be removed and dealt with independently.
1.5. Quorum
1.5.1. For a meeting to be quorate, more than 50% of the currently sitting ALAC Members must be present, face-to-face, telephonically, or by other means explicitly approved by the ALAC.
1.5.2. For votes taken electronically over a period of time, all ALAC Members are deemed to have been present.
1.5.3. For a Consensus decision to be considered valid, the meeting must be quorate and ALAC Members from all ICANN Regions currently represented on the ALAC must have been present in person, telephonically, or by other means explicitly approved by the ALAC.
1.5.4. For a Vote during a meeting to be considered valid, the meeting must be quorate and ALAC Members from all ICANN Regions currently represented on the ALAC must have been present in person, telephonically, or by other means explicitly approved by the ALAC unless the issue is so urgent as to not allow prolonging the vote as per Section C.1.10.10. In all other cases, the vote must be prolonged to allow all regions an opportunity to participate.
1.6. Open Meetings, Speaking Rights and Speaking Order
1.6.1. Unless otherwise decided by the ALAC to address a specific sensitive issue, all ALAC meetings are open.
1.6.2. Speaking priority is given to ALAC Members, Liaisons and Appointees, but time permitting, others may be granted speaking rights at the discretion of the Chair.
1.6.3. Participants who wish to speak should indicate their intention using whatever method is appropriate given the meeting details.
1.6.4. The Chair shall have sole control over the speaking order and may time-limit interventions.
1.7. Motions
1.7.1. Any formal action of the ALAC will be in the form of a Motion. Such formal action may be initiated at an ALAC meeting or electronically.
1.7.2. Motions may be made by any ALAC Member.
1.7.3. Motions to be decided at a meeting of the ALAC should be made and circulated well in advance of the meeting to the extent possible and practical, and should be included in the meeting agenda.
1.7.4. All Motions must be seconded by another ALAC Member.
1.7.5. The Chair shall allow sufficient time for discussion, which may take place at a meeting or electronically, prior to the ALAC taking a decision.
1.7.6. Prior to reaching a decision, an amendment to the Motion may be suggested by any ALAC Member.
1.7.6.1. If the ALAC Members who put and seconded the original Motion deem the amendment to be “friendly”, it will immediately become part of the Motion being considered.
1.7.6.2. If a motion is not considered to be friendly, a decision of the ALAC is required as to whether the amendment is incorporated or rejected.
1.7.6.3. The decision on a non-friendly amendment must be taken prior to proceeding with the primary motion.
1.8. Points of Order
1.8.1. A point of order is an interruption of a meeting which must be addressed before the meeting may proceed. There are three general types of Points of Order with respect to ALAC meetings.
1.8.1.1. A situation where an ALAC Member believes that the ICANN Bylaws or the ALAC Rules within these Rules of Procedure are not being followed and requests a ruling of the Chair.
1.8.1.2. A situation where continuation of the meeting is impractical due technical or other problem. Examples of such problems include the lack of technical infrastructure and the failure of audio-visual aides.
1.8.1.3. A situation where an ALAC Member requires a clarification related to the issue being discussed, such as the definition of a term or which of a multi-part issue is being discussed.
1.8.2. The Chair shall rule if anything needs to be done to correct the situation.
1.9. Procedural Motions
1.9.1. A procedural motion is a motion to do the following (in order of precedence):
1.9.1.1. Suspend the meeting;
1.9.1.2. Adjourn the meeting;
1.9.1.3. Close debate on an issue and initiate the decision process (consensus or vote)
1.9.2. A procedural motion may be made by any ALAC Member and does not need to be seconded.
1.9.3. The Chair may disallow a motion to close debate if he/she feels that the question has not been fully explored.
1.9.4. Once a procedural motion is made, it must immediately be decided by either consensus or vote.
1.9.5. If multiple procedural motions are made, they must be addressed in the order specified in this section.
1.10. Decisions of the ALAC
1.10.1. A decision of the ALAC can only be made subject to the quorum rules in section 1.5.
1.10.2. With several exceptions noted here, all face-to-face and teleconference decisions of the ALAC should preferably be made by Consensus.
1.10.3. When attempting to judge Consensus, the Chair will ask if there any objections to the Motion or amendment being adopted. If the call for objections is made electronically, sufficient time should be allowed for ALAC Members to voice their objection.
1.10.4. Whether Consensus has been reached is a ruling of the Chair.
1.10.4.1. As a “rule of thumb”, Consensus is no less than 80% of the then sitting ALAC Members.
1.10.5. Any ALAC Member may request that a formal vote be taken instead of the Chair judging whether Consensus has been reached. If such a vote is requested, the Chair may decide whether to hold the vote immediately or after additional discussion.
1.10.6. Any ALAC Member may request that a Consensus decision be verified by a formal vote and the outcome of such vote will replace the Consensus decision.
1.10.7. If an ALAC Member cannot be present for a vote, either cast in person or electronically, that vote may be cast by another ALAC Member according to rules governing Proxies.
1.10.8. If an ALAC Member cannot be present for a decision made by consensus, another ALAC Member may represent them according to rules governing Proxies.
1.10.9. Any vote related to named individuals, whether in an election, appointment, recall or disciplinary action shall be held by secret ballot and the details of individual ALAC Member ballots shall not be revealed.
1.10.10. For any vote not held by secret ballot, how each ALAC Member votes shall be recorded in the records of the meeting.
1.10.11. All ALAC Members will be given an opportunity to request that the meeting record indicate the rationale for their vote. ALAC Members who abstain shall explicitly be asked if they wish such a record to be made.
1.10.12. For decision made by Consensus, any ALAC Member who does not support the Consensus position may request that their disagreement be noted in the records of the meeting.
1.10.13. If a vote is taken where the outcome is not needed immediately for a time-sensitive reason, the Chair may decide to keep the vote open for no more than three days to allow votes of those not at the meeting to be registered.
1.10.14. Votes carried out outside of formal meetings may be carried out using any method approved by the ALAC which may include:
1.10.14.1. Specialized web-based voting systems,
1.10.14.2. E-mail, as specified in the ALAC E-mail Guide [or Adjunct document].
1.10.14.3. Telephone with ICANN Staff, ALAC Chair or as otherwise specified by ALAC Chair.
1.10.15. Subject to the terms of section 1.5 requiring Quorum for all ALAC decisions, a vote is deemed to be successful if at least five delegates cast a non-abstaining vote, and if the number of votes in favour is higher than the number of votes against. For votes that explicitly require a super-majority, the number of votes cast in favour must be at least twice the number of votes cast against.
1.10.16. If a vote is taken which results in a tie, the Chair, by sole decision, may take any of the following actions:
1.10.16.1. Call for additional discussion and then a new vote of the ALAC.
1.10.16.2. Immediately call for a new vote of the ALAC.
1.10.16.3. If the vote was part of a nomination and selection process, re-open the entire process.
1.10.16.4. Cast a an additional ballot to eliminate the tie. This option may be exercised only by the ALAC Chair.
1.10.17. Votes must be used in lieu of Consensus for:
1.10.17.1. Election of the ALAC Chair
1.10.17.2. Approval or removal of an ALS
1.10.17.3. Any vote that must be held by secret ballot
1.10.18. If any part of the present section of the Rules of Procedure are contradicted by the sections governing the election of the ALAC Chair, the latter sections must be followed.
1.11. Proxies
1.11.1. If an ALAC Member will be unable to participate in a decision of the ALAC, another Member (Proxy Holder) may hold a proxy to cast that vote on behalf of the first ALAC Member (Proxy Giver).
1.11.2. If the details of a decision are known ahead of time, the Proxy Giver may instruct the Proxy Holder how to vote and the Proxy Holder is honour bound to follow those instructions. Such a Proxy is known as a Directed Proxy. If no specific instructions are given (an Undirected Proxy) the Proxy Holder may vote as he/she wishes.
1.11.3. An Undirected Proxy may be given to cover some or all votes to be held in a given meeting.
1.11.4. An ALAC Member may receive Proxies from no more than two other ALAC Members.
1.11.5. If a Proxy Holder is not at the specified meeting, the Proxy shall be given to the Chair of the meeting who may hold an unlimited number of such “2nd order” Proxies.
1.11.5.1. A Proxy Giver may specify that the Proxy not go to the meeting Chair in the case of absence of the Proxy Holder.
1.11.6. Proxies, whether Directed or Undirected, do not alter the rules surrounding disclosure of how an ALAC Member votes. In the case of a secret ballot, the Proxy Holder is honour bound not to publicly reveal the contents of the cast Proxy vote.
1.11.7. The ALAC will from time-to-time publish the details of how a Proxy is to be issued.
1.11.8. An ALAC member who has a personal conflict of interest related to any decision may give an undirected proxy to another ALAC Member to avoid the conflict.
1.11.9. The existence of any Proxy does not impact the rules for a meeting being quorate. A Proxy given by an ALAC Member does, however, cause that member to have been deemed present for an ALAC decision.
1.12. Records of ALAC Meetings
1.12.1. Records of ALAC meetings, whether in the form of formal “minutes” or less formal notes or meeting summaries, shall at a minimum include:
1.12.1.1. Type of meeting, date, location (if face-to-face) and start and stop times
1.12.1.2. Attendance including how a person joined (for instance in person or via teleconference)
1.12.1.3. Agenda, as amended during the meeting if applicable
1.12.1.4. Decisions taken including method (vote or Consensus), record of how ALAC Members voted if a vote, and records of any abstentions or other remarks requested by ALAC Members
1.12.1.5. Links to any media associated with meeting (such as recordings, presentations)
1.12.1.6. Any of the above may be omitted by decision of the ALAC if inclusion would violate confidentiality in any particular case.
1.12.2. Records of meeting must be made available to ALAC Members by the earlier of a) 30 days from the date of the meeting (or last date if the meeting spanned more than one day); or b) the posting of the final agenda for the following meeting.
1.12.3. Records of meetings are deemed to be accepted 14 days after they are first distributed, or 14 days after the last correction is requested by an ALAC Member.
2. Amendment of the Rules of Procedure
2.1.1. A Motion to amend the Rules of Procedure must be made at least 21 calendar days prior to the meeting.
2.1.2. The text of the changes must be provided at the time the Motion is made.
2.1.3. Amendments are allowed, but any suggested amendments should preferably be made well in advance of the meeting.
2.1.4. Approval of the modified Rules of Procedure requires a super-majority vote of the ALAC.
3. ALAC Work Methods
3.1. The ALAC will use a variety of work methods to accomplish its goals. These will include:
3.1.1. Face-to-face meetings
3.1.2. Teleconferences
3.1.3. E-mail
3.1.4. Wikis
3.1.5. Other methods that are deemed by the ALAC to be appropriate and generally accessible to its ALAC Member, Appointees, and members of the At-Large Community.
3.2. E-mail
3.2.1. E-mail is a prime technology used by the ALAC.
3.2.2. The ALAC and At-Large will have a variety of E-mail mailing lists to allow easy communications amongst ALAC Members, Appointees, WG members, RALOs, and members of At-Large.
3.2.3. To ensure that these lists are used properly and have the correct membership lists, the ALAC will from time-to-time publish a guide to its mailing lists.
3.2.4. Most At-Large mailing lists are archived and viewable by the public. The ALAC guide to mailing lists will identify which lists are public and which are not.
3.2.5. Communication by electronic mail shall be considered equivalent to any communication otherwise required to be in writing. The ALAC shall take such steps as it deems appropriate under the circumstances to assure itself that communications by electronic mail are authentic.
3.3. Work Teams
3.3.1. Much of the work of the ALAC will be carried out through Work Teams (WT). Examples of WTs include but are not limited to:
3.3.1.1. ALAC Sub-committees, standing or ad hoc
3.3.1.2. Drafting Teams
3.3.1.3. Working Groups
3.3.2. The ALAC Charters all such WTs, specifying intent of the group, expected outcomes if applicable, general or specific WT composition and membership.
3.4. Conduct
3.4.1. All ALAC Members, Liaisons and Appointees and At-Large participants will adhere to the ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior in all of their ICANN-related activities.
3.4.2. ALAC Members, Liaisons and Appointees and At-Large participants must always behave in a professional manner and treat all ICANN participants and staff with respect, whether in person, on teleconferences, via e-mail, or through other electronic work methods. Examples of inappropriate behaviour include but are not limited to postings or other actions: used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others; or that are libellous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresent another person.
3.4.3. ALAC meetings and At-Large electronic communications are largely in support of ALAC activities related to policy and administration.
3.4.4. Most ALAC meetings and At-Large electronic communications are open, archived and viewable by the public. Care must be taken so as to not violate any obligations of confidentiality or violate the privacy of others.
3.5. All ALAC meetings are conducted in English and most documents associated with ALAC and ICANN are solely in English. As such, all ALAC Members must have a suitable level of spoken and written English proficiency. To the extent possible and practical, and subject to ICANN policy, ICANN funding and sufficient demand, simultaneous translation from and into other languages may be provided. WT meetings are generally conducted only in English, but consideration may be given to interpretation subject to the same guidelines as for ALAC meetings.
4. At-Large Structures
4.1. The ALAC shall, subject to review by the RALOs and the ICANN Board, set procedures to certify and decertify At-Large Structures.
4.2. Detailed procedures are set forth in the Adjunct document “At-Large Framework Formation” (http://www.atlarge.icann.org/framework.htm).
4.3. The “At-Large Framework Formation” shall be deemed to be an integral part of these Rules of Procedure.
32 Comments
Alan Greenberg
Record of outcomes of 25 July 2012 Meeting
Red: Issues to be looked at in following meetings. Underlined once addressed
Blue: Decisions at meeting of 17 September 2012
Basis for ALAC Procedures
Alan Greenberg
Record of outcomes of 14 August 2012 Meeting
Red: Issues to be looked at in following meetings. Underlined once addressed
Blue: Decisions at meeting of 04 September 2012
Green: Decisions at meeting of 17 September 2012
Quorums
Consensus
Maureen Hilyard
Quorum
Consensus
Proxies
Other issues
Alan Greenberg
References that follow related to repeating numbers are not meant as a criticism of the commenter. They ARE meant as a criticism of those who wrote, maintain and support this software which is not usable by normally intelligent, computer-literate people).
Quorum - 1st 1: Not sure I understand the question. We are THE group to be deciding. Until the ALAC second-guesses us later.
Quorum 2nd 1: Sure should be such a note in our records.
Quorum 2: Our practice is that such discussions can take place and are recorded in the minutes or whatever record we are taking, but we cannot take a substantive decision on behalf of the ALAC during that session. I believe that this is pragmatic and we should formally document this practice. At the discretion of the Chair.
Consensus 1: Agree. We do need to define how one recognized consensus. I would recommend something like no less than 80 of those present.
Consensus 2: Agree, any member should be allowed to call for a vote, but it is up to the Chair to decide if there has been sufficient discussion first.
Consensus 2nd 1: Agree. We will need to define the list of those that do.
Proxies 1st 1:Last meeting will be documented shortly.
Proxies 2nd 1: My thoughts in m reply to Equardo's note.
Other Issues 1st 1: As I have said before, I don't really see the need to have defined terms for different types of meetings. Perhaps there might be 1 or 2 exceptions to this. But I do feel that we can get the equivalent impact by defining rules about specific types of decision taken at meeting, such as the rules of meeting notice, publication of motion(s) and quorum for a decision to amend the Rules of Procedure.
Other Issues 2nd 1: All good questions, and ones that need to be addressed, although not by this DT.
Eduardo Diaz
My thoughts regarding the proxy discussion. Let's talk about this in our next meeting.
A proxy can be given to another ALAC member for voting ONLY and should count as quorum for voting and meeting purposes. However, the ALAC member that is giving the proxy should be recorded as absent from the meeting.
Rationale:
The proxy will serve two purposes. One to move the meeting forward. It could help in establishing the necessary quorum to start the meeting . Second to move a vote forward. It could help in establishing the necessary quorum and, more important, the regional balance necessary for the vote.
If the ALAC member that is giving the proxy is not physically present it should be recorded as absent for metric purposes.
For the Metrics group:
What will happen if there is the case where an ALAC member decides to not be present ever in a meeting and act by proxy?
Any given ALAC member can hold a maximum of one proxy.
Rationale: This will avoid the “remote” situation where one member could hold a meeting by @self.
The proxy can be directed i.e it directs the proxy's holder to vote a certain way.
Rationale:
There should be an opportunity for the ALAC member that is giving the proxy to decide which way to direct the vote on specific issues
Replacements should not be included in the rules
Rationale:
If the ALAC member is not planning to (or can not) be physically (or virtually) in the meeting then @ should generate a proxy. I do not know how much a replacement can contribute to the ALAC discussions. Also, I believe it will make the rules simpler for there are no issues regarding if the ALAC member is considered present in the meeting via the replacement or what qualifications the replacement has to have, etc, etc.
The Chair should hold and execute the proxy of any ALAC member whose proxy was given to another ALAC member and who is also not present in the meeting.
Rationale:
This will help in establishing the necessary quorum to start the meeting and move a vote forward in establishing the necessary quorum and regional balance.
@ = him/her
Alan Greenberg
I support much (but not quite all) of what Eduardo has said. Specifically:
I think that a lot of this discussion comes down to ensuring that the 15 ALAC members actually represent the views of X billion Internet users. It is not just about conducting our business, but being effective spokes-people for the until users that don't even know that ICANN is making decisions that will ultimately impact them.
Eduardo Diaz
The reason I am indicating that a proxy should count as quorum for the meeting is because at one point it was mentioned that to establish quorum in a meeting we need only 50%+1 with no concern as to regional balance which can make it easy to move a meeting forward. In #1 I read you as that this balance its needed to have a meeting (maybe I misreading you). Is a different matter when it's time to make decisions which I strongly believe that a regional balance is needed.
I agree with you in #5 but for different reasons. Let's say that the ALAC member who is holding a proxy does not show, How does the chair know that @ is holding a proxy? Cumbersome, cumbersome...
Alan Greenberg
Regarding regional balance, I think the idea that we came up with to require at least one person per region is a good one and I think we should add it to the quorum rule (both meeting and vote).
Eduardo Diaz
I am OK with this. Let see what other have to say.
Talk to you tomorrow.
-ed
Maureen Hilyard
So are we saying that:
M
Alan Greenberg
On reviewing the meeting MP3, I think that we had actually decided that regional balance was only needed for decisions, not to make a meeting quorate.
I am not sure we decided on the Chair holding multiple proxies. Some people have said that , but not all agreed. I for one do not see the rationale and am happy that if I give my vote to X and X is not there, no vote is cast (remembering that we are now saying that if a vote is important, there will be a window open to cast the vote after the meeting).
Alan Greenberg
Record of outcomes of 04 September 2012 Meeting
Red: Issues to be looked at in following meetings. Underlined once addressed
Blue: Decisions at meeting of 17 September 2012
Green: Decisions at meeting of 02 October, 2012
Formal Meetings
Need way to waive notice with sufficient agreement (ie greater than just 50%).
Minutes/notes: define minimum requirements
Need to specify what level of detail is mandatory.
Attendance including how person joined (in person, teleconference)
The Google translation is:
If the translation is accurate, it is a comment against the term "assembly" which I do not think we were planning to use in the current discussion, and for terms such as Ordinary or Extraordinary but without an explanation of what is meant to happen in such meetings or how they are called.
I would suggest that we pattern our Rules after those of the ICANN Board of Directors. Article VI, section 14 and 15. There are "Regular Meetings" and "Special Meetings". What makes Special meetings special is that they can be held at the request of the Chair or a subset (less than majority) of the Board. I think that this captures a really important aspect that we have not had before (and not needed in the recent past). Specifically it can allow for a meeting of the Board to (for instance) discuss the recall of a Chair).
All other issues related to unusual meetings can be covered by the rules associated with those actions. For instance, the notice period, detail of the notice, and associated voting threshhold for chaing the RoP or perhaps other key documents.
I note that the Bylaws also call for an ICANN Annual General Meeting (section 13). We could certainly have one of those, but I really don't see the need. We will already be specifying how and when we name Chair and officiers in the appropriate sections of the RoP. We do not need to have one to satisfy Incorporation rules, or to name auditors. So I am not sure what the benefit if having this defined term would be.
Regular Meetings
Urgent Meetings
Special Meetings
Annual General Meeting
Work Methods
Proxies and Replacements
Alan Greenberg
Record of outcomes of 17 September 2012 Meeting
The meeting never got to new material, but one suggestion was made with no objection:
Alan Greenberg
Record of outcomes of 02 October 2012 meeting
Formal ALAC Actions
Procedural Motions (current rule 18)
Motions (current rule 15/19)
Amendments (current rule 20)
Points of Order (current rule 17)
Voting Thresholds (current rule various and 23/24)
Impact of Abstention (current rule 15/19)
Carry-over votes
Electronic votes
Consent Agenda
Advance notice of Motions
Request to defer a vote
Reconsideration request
Meeting Rules
What to include in RoP
Precedence of rules (Bylaws, RoP, Decision of ALAC, External, Chair);
Rulings (Chair)
Maureen Hilyard
Re1.5.2 Quorum – a lot of time was spent on the regional representation requirement for a vote quorum and I don’t think we should compromise it as a rule.
However, like Rinalia, I agree that an alternative should be available in the event where a full regional representation is not possible, yet the decision is crucial, then the Chair may invoke a ‘fallback clause’ that allows for (3 or) 4 as the minimum requirement.
In normal circumstances, if all regions are not represented for a vote, the first course of action for the Chair should be to allow for extra time for members to cast an electronic vote or some other voting procedure.
Dear Alan,
Excellent draft. Quick comments:
1 - "1.11.7. The ALAC will publish the details of how a Proxy is to be issued."
- When?
- Will "details of how a proxy is to be issued" be issued once and will apply for all voting events or will details be sent out for each voting event when they are about to happen?
- The details of how proxy is to be issued is meant to present evidence that a proxy has in fact been given beyond the proxy holder saying that s/he has a proxy, which means that staff and the Chair would need to be informed in writing, correct?
2 - "1.5.2.- Quorum - For a vote or decision to be valid which will be completed at a meeting, the meeting must be quorate at the time of the decision. <<At an earlier
meeting, it weas decided that in addition to the standard Quorum requirement,
for a vote or decision to proceed, all five ICANN regions needed to be present.
However, it was later realized that the inclusion of such a rule would give
any region an effective veto, because if they were not at or left a meeting, the
ALAC would not be able to act. Once possible alternative would be to require
that at least 3 of the 5 regions be represented in the meeting for a decision to be taken"
- Why not increase the minimum requirement from 3/5 and to 4/5, especially when participation in decision making is crucial?
4 - "1.2.3.3. - Urgent Meetings - The only Motion that a Special Meeting can approve is to convert this meeting into a Regular Meeting.
- I think you mean "Urgent Meeting" and not "Special Meeting" in 1.2.3.3.
- I find the clause to be a bit of a puzzle because urgent meetings would be held to address urgent issues on short notice. So if the only motion approvable by the urgent meeting is to convert the meeting into a regular meeting, which requires more than short notice, is that not a contradiction?
- Is there a reason why the motion for the urgent meeting needs to be restricted as such?
Best regards,
Rinalia
Yaovi Atohoun
1.2.3.2 Like something missing
1,2,3,3 : I suggest we move the content under 1.2.4
1.5.2 a typo error " ... it weas....
1.8.2 The chair shall what...... (not clear to me)
1.12 No content?
3.4 I would suggest that we don't mention "subject to funding"
Alan Greenberg
1.2.3.2 should be "Requires Quorum to begin"
1.2.3.3 Special should have been Urgent.
1.5.2 Thanks.
1.8.2 "what" should have been "rule" And no comma.
1.12 Should be deleted - it is not under 1.4
3.4 We can discuss.
Alan Greenberg
Reply to Rinalia's note.
1.11.7. Should be "The ALAC will from-time-to-time publish". One of the "details" we need to do prior to or soon after approval of RoP
1.5.2 Discuss at meeting.
1.2.3.3 Yup - type. Wording will be changed to clarify that the after approval, the meeting has the same status as a regular meeting (ie, it can do anything a regular meeting could).
Rationale was that since it was called without notice, it takes an action of the ALAC to wave that notice retroactively.
Yaovi Atohoun
A minor comment on the draft showing changes: 1.12 is deleted then 1.13 becomes 1.12 and 1.13.x becomes 1.12.x
Yaovi
Alan Greenberg
I realized tat there (at least) one section missing. We earlier decided that we would not have an exhaustive list of dos and don'ts as in the current rule 22, but we would have a brief outline and point to an adjunct document for the details. That section is missing. I will proposed draft wording soon.
Alan Greenberg
New version now in Wiki.
Alan Greenberg
My take on the questions posed in the new text.
I am of two minds on this one. If someone calls for debate to end, it is subject to a vote/consensus, so if it was really premature attempt to close discussion, then the vote would likely fail and there is no need for a Chair intervention. On the other hand, it could be viewed as a waste of time and a over-ruling from the Chair might be justified.
The issue here is if someone feels that the consensus judgement by the Chair is wrong, can they ask for a formal vote instead. My inclination is to say yes. It is not likely to succeed, mind you, because a vote only needs >50% and a consensus judgement needs more, but to keep things clean, I think that we should allow it.
I think so. There will be cases where the chair knows ahead of time that there is no opposition and it lends a nice tone to things.
I think that we should allow an undirected proxy to handle present but conflicted situations.
I think we should be explicit.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
Thanks for this discourse Alan I tend (surprise Surprise) to agree with you on these BUT on 1.9.5 I'm single minded ;-) => Empower the Chair to either Allow OR to Disallow such a Motion depending on the circumstance this is the skill set a Chair needs sorting out what to do when...
Alan Greenberg
Thanks Cheryl. I tend to agree with you on 1.9.5, which is why the issue came to mind to begin with. But on putting the question in writing, I was not sure this was something that we NEEDED to empower the Chair with. So I presented both sides.
Maureen Hilyard
You've done a great job Alan. I agree that it is the Chair's call.. and as you say there is no need for "empowering the Chair" when that's already a given for such decisions.
Yaovi Atohoun
Regarding the question in 1.9.5
My view is that 1.9.3 is already giving the answer for such situation and I agree with Alan's explanation.
Regarding 1.10.4: OK for me
Regarding 1.10.6: As we are saying "unanimous consensus" , this is fine for me. If not 1.10.4 is a solution.
Rinalia Abdul Rahim
Just for the record, am putting my comments via the email list on 15 Jan 2013 here as well:
Dear Alan,
Excellent work! Some Input (note - am ignoring typos):
Section B: Responsibilities
"The duties of Chair include: ... 2.8.2. Has the authority to determine the procedures to be followed where standard operating procedures do not cover a specific situation,"
Recommendation: "Determines the procedures to be followed where standard
operating procedures do not cover a specific situation,".
Reason: Having the authority to ... is not a duty of the Chair. It is the power invested in the position. Perhaps you can park the authority bit under some other section that describes the powers/rights of the Chair?
"2.8.8. Facilitates and encourages participation of all ALAC Members in At-Large
Community activities and taking appropriate actions when the participation
and contributions of ALAC Members and appointees do not meet."
Recommendation: Facilitates and encourages participation of all ALAC Members in At-Large Community activities and takes appropriate actions when the participation
and contributions of ALAC Members and appointees are unsatisfactory/do not meet expectations."
"7. Performance and Metrics"
Recommendation: Position 7.1 - 7.4 as a preamble because they read more like a preamble rather than rules in that section.
"7.5.1. Meeting attendance including sending prior notice if attendance not possible. 7.5.2. Attendance will be based on individual ALAC sessions for those present at ICANN meetings"
Recommendation: I suggest 7.5.2 be made a sub or note of 7.5.1 because it can be deemed as an elaboration of 7.5.1.
"7.8. The ALAC has the right to withdraw the appointment of ALAC appointees."
Recommendation: "7.8. The ALAC has the right to withdraw the appointment of ALAC appointees due to unsatisfactory performance."
7.9. The Chair is empowered to initiate or take action as agreed to by the ALAC. Any such actions must be done with due consideration to cultural differences throughout At-Large and to the extent possible.
Recommendation: 7.9. The Chair is empowered to initiate or take action on unsatisfactory performance as agreed to by the ALAC. Any such actions must be done with due sensitivity and consideration to cultural differences throughout At-Large and to the extent possible."
"7.10.4. Withdrawal of travel funding, in conjunction with the appropriate ICANN
budget manager(s)."
This sentence strikes me as odd - is it complete? What is meant by "in conjunction with"? Do you mean that the decision and authorization for withdrawing travel funding come from the ALAC Chair and the implementation/enforcement is done by the budget manager?
Section C: Meetings and Administration
"1.4.1. All meetings should have an agenda, preferably published ahead of time
identifying the topics to be covered in the meeting as well as the projected time
to be allowed for each item."
Can we explicitly say somewhere that if votes are to be conducted at meetings (to the extent that they are known in advance) that it should be specified in the meeting agenda, which should be circulated with due notice? I've had experiences where votes were surprisingly conducted at meetings where I could not attend and where I could not prepare for proxy voting etc because I didn't know there would be a vote!
1.5.2. - I support 1.5.2.2. for now.
"1.9.5. [Should the Chair be able to disallow a motion to close debate if he/she
feels that the question has not been fully explored?]" YES.
"1.10.4. Any ALAC Member may request that a formal vote be taken instead
of the Chair judging whether Consensus has been reached. If such a vote is
requested, the Chair may decide whether to hold the vote immediately or after
additional discussion. [Should this be allowed AFTER the chair has deemed
consensus?]" YES as check and balance against power/judgement of the Chair.
"1.10.6. Any vote related to personnel, whether in an election, appointment, recall
or disciplinary action shall be held by secret ballot and how each ALAC
Member votes shall not be revealed. [Should Chair be allowed to ask for
unanimous agreement first??]" NO. Secret ballot should be a firm rule. By the way, the word "personnel" threw of me off. I usually associate the word personnel with staff. Is there another word that can be used? Otherwise my suggestion for replacement is "individuals."
"1.10.13. If a formal vote is taken which results in a tie, the Chair may: ... 1.10.13.2. Call for additional discussion and then decision"
Question - Does this decision involve a vote?
"1.11.8. Do we want a rule saying that if an ALAC member will be in a conflict
situation, they may give an undirected proxy to avoid the conflict?" No. This opens it up for the possibility of gaming.
3.4 .>>[Do we to explicitly want to add that all ALAC Members are expected to be able to function (both written and oral) in English)? This is implied by the first sentence but perhaps better be clear.] YES.
END OF INPUT
Rinalia Abdul Rahim
Alan's Response to Rinalia's comments (dated 21 Jan 2013 via the mailing list):
My thoughts embedded. Alan
At 15/01/2013 06:02 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
Agreed. Don't think the "has the authority" was needed. That authority is implicitly granted by this statement being in the RoP. Good catch.
Yup. Looks like sentence had a few more words that got lost along the way. But curiously ALL previous drafts ended in exactly the same way.
Agree on the analysis, but not sure about solution, since we do not have a concept of preamble (or justification) in the rest of these rules. However, I think that without this text somewhere, we are just asking for future ALAC members (or others) to raise the question of "why do we need all this". Perhaps a preamble is the way to go here, unless we are prepared to have a "rationale" for every section. AS good as that may be, I don't see it happening at the moment.
Good catch.
Don't think we want to use words like "unsatisfactory performance". Problems could well be an issue of the person's beliefs on a specific topic not meshing well with those of the ALAC and not arguing for the ALAC positions sufficiently convincingly. I think we need to keep it more open. Perhaps we need some "rationale" there, but need to be less specific. It comes down to the person serving at the pleasure of the ALAC, and if they are not, we would not want the person to be able to go to the Ombudsman and be re-instated.
Agree on adding sensitivity. We had a long discussion on this during the meeting and I am not sure from my notes on the outcome. "to the extent possible" haning at the end wotihout the phrase that was deleted does not sound right. Will review the MP3.
It is complete. And your analysis is one of the interpretations. Or a recommendation from the budget manager with concurrence from the Chair. That actual withdrawal is an action of the budget manager, but presumably it would be a joint decision (if it wasn't the chair that was the target).
We talked about this a lot. The feeling was that we do not want to be so rigid as to not allow a vote that seems urgent even if it has not had prior notice. 1.7.3 already says that to the extent possible, motions should be circulated ahead of time. I agree that 1.7.3 should make reference to the agenda. We will also now have the option to carry over voting to get missing votes. Of course that will not help if a decision is taken by consensus, but in that case the decision implied overwhelming support and a single vote should not likely change the outcome. Of course that presume that we can get meeting attendance up to a reasonable level most of the time.
Good. That seems to be the consensus which I hopw we will ratify once we meet.
We had a lot of e-mail input on this and I *think* that was the consensus, but must do a full tally.
Based on e-mail input, others agree, as do I.
Consensus seemed to be for allowing such a move but will see on the call. Will look for alternative wording.
The term "decision" implies by consensus or vote. But since this case referes to a contentious issue, a vote would be the only way forward unless based on some miracle, the additional discussion swayed many people.
How so? I guess giving the proxy to someone who is not personally conflicted but you happen to know agrees with the position that would benefit you could be considered gaming. Is that what you mean?
That was what others who replied by e-mail said as well.
Rinalia Abdul Rahim
Rinalia's additional comments on 21 Jan 2013 via the mailing list:
Hi, Alan.
Responses on some of the points you raised:
AG: Don't think we want to use words like "unsatisfactory performance". Problems could well be an issue of the person's beliefs on a specific topic not meshing well with those of the ALAC and not arguing for the ALAC positions sufficiently convincingly. I think we need to keep it more open. Perhaps we need some "rationale" there, but need to be less specific. It comes down to the person serving at the pleasure of the ALAC, and if they are not, we would not want the person to be able to go to the Ombudsman and be re-instated.
RAR: I'm OK with keeping it open, which provides for flexibility. The clauses are under "Performance and Metrics', so some rationale tying it to some aspect of performance would be good.
AG: The term "decision" implies by consensus or vote. But since this case referes to a contentious issue, a vote would be the only way forward unless based on some miracle, the additional discussion swayed many people.
RAR: If vote is the only way forward in this particular situation/clause, best to specify "... decision via vote."
AG: How so? I guess giving the proxy to someone who is not personally conflicted but you happen to know agrees with the position that would benefit you could be considered gaming. Is that what you mean?
RAR: Yes, exactly.
END
Thanks!
Alan Greenberg
Some last minute changes just before MADT meeting. Highlighted in GREY in Word and PDF docs.
Rinalia Abdul Rahim
Dear Alan,
I've uploaded RoP-Section-C1-Draft-v19-RAR.doc to this wiki space with some edits and a few questions for clarification.
I confess that the geek in me agonized over whether ";" or "." should follow ":" but I ended up following your precedent and continued with ".".
Did the group decide to keep 1.11.8 despite the "gaming" potential? Was it based on quorum considerations?
Best regards,
Rinalia
Alan Greenberg
Understand quandary about : ... ;
I typically use semi-colon, but I admit I am not sure on protocol if the sub-item is multi-sentence. End the LAST sentence with the semicolon?????
On 1.11.8, yes, there was a substantive discussion and a conscious decision. There was a pretty universal feeling (on the call I think it was unanimous) that the possible harm was overshadowed by the desire to ensure that all regions are fully represented and that a personal issue with an ALAC member should not impact that.