AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

ALAC Liaisons and Representatives 

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

ESADT Meeting

Tuesday 31 July 2012 at 1300 UTC

 

Summary Minutes and Action Items

 

1.  Roll Call and Apologies (staff 5 min)

  • The roll call was held and apologies were reviewed 
  • Susan Chalmers was introduced.

 

2. Introduction Welcome and Purpose of Call. (meeting chair/staff/group 10 min)

  • CLO: We will first have a quick review of the small breakouts from Prague. In Prague, we broke the RoPs into 3 primary sections (one of which has two subsections).
  • CLO: Regarding the agenda, we are to agree on a general methodology and a way forward.
  • CLO: we should use language that can be easily translated.

 

3. Review of and agree ROP Elections, Selection & Appointments DT meeting 2012-07-31eement on relevant Rules (existing) for review what is IN and Out of scope (20-25 min)

  • CLO: From the current rules of procedure, we are trying to have things that are a lot less cumbersome and perhaps more generic in approach. For example, one of the problems we face is the to clarify a preference for the selection vs. appointment of people to various roles.
  • CLO: There are a number of situations where people in a leadership role are appointed and do not necessarily need to be elected.
  • OCL: Whenever someone is selected by the ALAC, the regional advice is often sought. However, it is not clear that the ALAC is not bound to follow this advice. The ALAC reserves the right to choose whom it wishes.
  • OCL: There are small differences between an election and a selection. One has to add one thing with regards to this - the selection process does not need to be an election every single time. It can be by acclamation, consensus, etc.
  • OCL: There is also to issue of using the "none of the above" option.
  • CLO: I ask this team to not become too bogged down on non-methodological options.
  • TBJ: I am confused, Olivier, as I now have the impression that the ALAC has numerous options to selections that do not take into account the regional advice. I hope doing so is an exception and that we remain a bottom up approach.
  • AG: With regards to OCL's points, with the exception of NomCom, it is an ALAC final choice. This is a bylaw. Regarding the tone of OCL's comments, it is implied that it is already set in stone. However, this group may wish to change this rule.
  • AD: I very much agree that, as much as possible, it should be bottom up. Also, as Alan said, things that are mandated by a bylaw, but for everything else where we have a chance to make things more democratic or participatory, I am wholly in agreement. Part of the problem I see when I look at ALAC and At-Large is that we are not brining in everyone to participate.
  • AD: Regarding none of the above, very often we vote for someone because they are worthy. However, by not offering some choice we are denigrating our choice. I think the mandate that person gets is strengthened by having this option.
  • OCL:  I am in no way bushing for a top down approach. 2/3 ALAC members are selected by the regions - they are therefore the voice of the region. If they are not doing this job, then they should be replaced. The ALAC does not impose anything on the regions, the regions choose their representatives. 
  • TBJ: You misunderstood me. I am not saying you are pushing for a top down model, I said you gave me the impression that we are having a top down model. I just think we should always try to recognize top down model
  • AG: In terms of TBJ's comment that we should always try to be bottom up, the issue if what do we put in the rules. If the rules allow the ALAC to override, it may not do that very often. Our question here is do we allow the ALAC ot override?
  • AG: Not every decision needs to go all the way to the bottom or all the way to the top.
  • AG: Regarding none of the above, it ends p in a divisive nature if none of the above wins. This is dangerous as we are a volunteer organization. What is we don’t believe in the volunteers?
  • AG: Regarding election vs. selection, there is the issue of a selection being a point of discussion where, in an election, one may make a decision that one may not tell one's friends.
  • CLO: The bylaws do mention selections and elections. Selections are related to those who become members of the ALAC via the regions, Selections are related to those who become members of the ALAC via the NomCom. The bylaws actually say only mandate an election one time - the election of the chair. We need to come up with some set of agreed set of rules of how the election will go on.
  • AD: Is it in scope for this group to decide if the selection process can be an election or is this out of scope?
  • CLO: In terms of the bylaws and our founding documents, the only thing we are bound to elect is a chair.
  • AD: So, is it in scope to make an election a method of selection?
  • CLO: I would think that yes is the answer.
  • YA: From our discussion, I recommend that we ask the definition group to define what is meant by an election and what is meant by a selection.
  • TBJ: Even if the bylaws say election, OCL was actually chose by acclimation - he was the only candidate. 
  • AG: Yes, our rules should be explicit if their is an accumulation.
  • AI: The wiki space is to be expanded. A new page is to be created so we look at selections and appointments. We should look at which roles should be selected and which should be elected. The page should clearly delineate which roles are selected, which roles are elected, and which roles are appointed. CLO to confirm that this page contains all pertinent info. 
  • AI: Staff to give Susan Chalmers wiki rights and subscribe her to the appropriate mailing list.
  • No labels