AGENDA
1. Welcome & Roll Call (5 min... CLO/Staff)
2. Review of Action Items from 16 April Meeting (5 min... CLO/Brett)
3. Discussion of ' How We Are To Proceed' Section by Section (25 min... WG)
See: ROP Section by Section page
See: Must Do Activities
See: Should Do Activities
See: Could Do Activities
4. Next Steps (including reporting deadline key dates etc.,) (15 min... CLO/Staff)
5. AOB (5 min... CLO/Staff)
6. Next Meeting (5 min... CLO/Staff)
Rules of Procedure WG & Metrics Sub Committee
Monday 07 May 2012
Summary Minutes:
Attendees:
English: Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Cintra Sooknanan, Yaovi Atohoun, Carlton Samuels, Jacqueline Morris, Holly Raiche, Alan Greenberg, Eduardo Diaz, Tijani Ben Jemaa, Darlene Thompson, Olivier Crépin-Leblond
Spanish: Sergio Salinas Porto, Natalia Enciso, Fatima Cambronero, Sylvia Herlein-leite
French: Baudouin Schombe
Apologies: Fatimata Seye Sylla, Maureen Hillyard
Staff: Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani
Interpreters: ES: Veronica & Sabrina / FR: Claire & Fernand
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MINUTES
Sala suggested looking at the skeleton before commenting on each rule
RULE: 1.1)
Comments:
Annotate that composition of the ALAC delegates is defined by ICANN by laws.
SSP: We should foresee an additional member, so we can have a more balanced representation, alternating member that could take over. There is no provision for alternate rep in the ALAC by laws.
AG: We need to divide the issue in 2 issues. 1) Ability to speak and 2) Ability to vote. The voting is the issue. Allowing another member to vote on behalf of the acting person.
CLO: At the moment our practice is that the Chair decides what to say in a specific meeting.
DT: Agree with Alan. Problem is does the alternate have as much knowledge as the person elected by the community? Unless it is a directed vote by the community, in that case I see no problem.
CS: Oppose to directed vote every vote must be taken on the value of the evidence. The alternate should be equally informed about the issues, if a person misses a vote, not a problem, but if it is a long term practice, then the alternate is a problem, the alternate only works if there is a directed vote from the RALO.
TBJ: No problem. We would not need to add anything to rule #1. For voting there is a problem, if you want to make the alternate idea official, it is hard work and we must think of the implications.
AG: Alternate is reasonable for someone speaking but not voting. That's why I separated the issue and “Directed" vote means directed by the elected member not by the RALO. The GNSO has a rule that for crucial votes, if person is not present vote, then they are allowed electronic voting for a period. He has no problem with persons not being up to speed.
SSP: ALAC members should be founders and defenders of bottom up structure, the one in charge should be able to do this. The alternate has the mandate of the region. Alternate will be a good example for the future leaders of the region. This is an idea only.
CLO: No change will occur without consensus and an appropriate call.
Rule 1.1 There is little pressure to change the text, however the concerns outlined by Sergio need to be addressed in other rules. For example, Rule 16.
We need to have a discussion on proxies and how they can or cannot be used.
AG: We use “delegate" which comes from UN rules and it causes confusion. Rule 1 is at odds with Rule 16. In rule 1.3 we use a third word for ALAC members. So we should call one same name so all the names are consistent.
Many ROP have a "definition section" we should consider having it.
Not all the RALO constituencies required that they have a representative elected to the ALAC. Are we forcing the RALO to elect by the language, can we use terminology as "appointed"?
CLO: Suggested term: Rule 1.1 individuals “APPOINTED” by each of the RALO.
AG: Do we want to impose terms?
CLO: t is up to the RALO to decide on mechanisms of appointment.
CS: Participation does not mean elections.
TBJ: They would go to elections if they do not have consensus.
Rule 1.2
Comments:
FC: With regards 1.1, she agrees with the word "appointment".
With regards to 1.1 I am in agreement with the Word designation, which is broader. Then each RALO will decide if it is by consensus or by voting.
FC: With regards to point 1.2. I am in agreement with eliminating or separating in two issues: One referred to those who can participate in ALAC and another point who form part of the ALAC as delegates, representative or any other term.
DT: In NARALO we allow for individuals to participate and they elect a "spoke person" to speak on their behalf. Would they be allowed to participate in the ALAC?
CLO: There is nothing in the bylaws. Under rule 16 there is a provision for observer.
AG: Non ALS people, the right of the person is to cast a vote, if such vote is necessary so it does not impact the RALO. He is not an ALS member and has done something for the RALO.
1.2 needs to be deleted and craft it from scratch because as draft it makes no sense.
ED: ALAC meetings are voting to anybody. It is not needed to have 1.2, it should be removed.
OCL: Removing 1.2 takes away the part that says non-members of the ALAC can participate. It belongs to another rule, 16 or another rule.
ED: We should say " individuals" just any individuals, not members of ALS.
CLO: Asked to make a decision to have 1.2 removed from this section but ensure that the principles of the participation is placed elsewhere probably in section 16 of the ROP.
Does anyone object to deleting 1.2 from this section?
1 objection: Tijani.
1.3 should remain (as 1.2)
" The right to vote in the ALAC is reserved to the members of the ALAC as per rule 1.1" .
Carlton agreed.
AG: There may be some proxy rules that need to be cross -referenced.
OCL: Should we change the title “Accreditation and participation".
ST: Right to vote.
CLO: Asked all participants to do more ONLINE.
--------------END------------------
