Summary Minutes and Action Items
MADT
09 October 2012 at 2030 UTC
Roll call: Staff
1. Item 1.5.2
A decision of this is incorrect. The regular quorum is a simple majority of ALAC but for a vote to proceed with need that quorum plus every region represented. This gives any region a complete veto, as a result a RALO which sense can lose a vote they can simply make sure that the vote does not happen. This is equal to holding the meeting hostage.
3 or more regions present
We should ammend the document
Tijani: Very umcomfortable with the proposal. I propose 4 instead of 3.
If two regions are not present we should convince them that the vote should proceed.
AG: This is a reasonable thing for a Chair to do.
AG: If there are 3 Regions the vote can proceed at the discretion of the Chair but the Chair has the discretion to go ahead but it is advice not to.
Yaovi: We are talking about a decision to be valid, and we have the option of the 2 other regions. If it is possible
AG: This clause only applies on URGENT issues. On important issues the Chair can carry the vote over. We are only talking about votes that can be completed in the meeting.
Carlton: If we have a quorate meeting then people vote. I do not see the reason for this clause. I think this is superfluous.
OCL: I am also concerned about this rule because it introduces minority blocking, not by people saying no, but by people absteining.
Enough people walking out can always stop the vote.
Here you are introducing "Minority blocking".
AG: This does give the group a minority veto. What we have here is not cast in stone.
2 different versions side by side and we will debate in Toronto.
1.4.1 We do not need more level of in our rules re what needs to be on the Agenda, we have operated without it.
1.4.2 ok
1.5.2 ok
1.6 Open Meetings, speaking rights and speaking orders
Do not see any hands...okay
2. Tijani: The Chair may take people out of order.
If you put it in the rules that means that the Chair has autority.
CLO: I prefer that the rule stay.
AG: My preference is to leave it.
Dev: I think this should stay, but 1.6.1 should be put first.
Next point: Points of order: This is somehting that according to Roberts this is only when the rules of the organizations are not being followed. But we have used them to better understand.
I do not think in ALAC we have ever used this.
My preference would be to use point of order because there is an inpendiment of the meeting going on.
1.8.1.1. goes
1.9 Procedural Motions
They take precedence. I have changed them a little bit because the previous rules talk about adjourning discussions.
AG: iI believe we should keep them.
Yaovi : Point of order question.
AG: In point of order the Chair makes the ruling.
Heidi: Cheryl has used points of order in the past during ALAC meetings when some rules had not been followed - such as the seconding of a motion or the seconding of a nominee.
Ex: In Dakar
4.3 In our discussions we had talked about that we would use the term work group as short hand. We have in ocassions used Work team.
Tijani: At large related group.
3. 4 Language
Translation is a formal ICANN policy.
Carlton: I prefer interpretation instead of similtaneous translation.
3.3 : Eduardo: "ALAC work Team". More consistent with the use of "Team"
3. OCL: Alac Subcomitte standing or Ad-Hoc
Drafting teams will always be Ad-Hoc.
Drafting teams shall remain as it is.
At Large structures.
In NARALO, when talking about decertification Heidi mentioned ICANN By laws are in our ROP.
At large Framework Formation, deemed to be part of the ROP which means we are satisfying the by-laws.
Tijani:
1.10.13: Proposal to change the order
AG: Changing and making it a sequence, changing the intent.
I do not believe the intent of the group was a sequence of things.
OCL: Tijani is suggesting the order in which things can be done be done and I do not know whether the group wants to define the order in which things need to be done. As a Chair I prefer having a choice but as a new Chair, I would not pick that option.
Yrjo: This is a list of options, perhaps to make it clear, we can say the Chair "may" do any of the following :.....
AG: If the Chair decides to take some other action that is fine.
Tijani: We speak about selection, not elections.
AG: I will make sure that this goes along with the by laws.
Dev: Approval or removal of an At Large structure: certifying and decertifying is the right word.
--------------------END------------------------------
