RE: [alac] Bylaws edit for ALS votes

["Roberto Gaetano" <alac_liaison@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would only address the quorum issue.
This means substituting the part:
"Decisions to certify or de-certify an At-Large Structure shall require a 
2/3 vote of all of the members of the ALAC and shall be subject to review 
according to procedures established by the Board."
with:
"Decisions to certify or de-certify an At-Large Structure shall require a 
2/3 majority among all of the members of the ALAC who cast a valid and 
non-abstaining vote, provided that at least 9 (nine) members of the ALAC 
cast a vote (counting abstentions), and shall be subject to review according 
to procedures established by the Board."

Regards,
Roberto GAETANO
ALAC
ICANN BoD Liaison




> From: Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: ALAC <alac@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [alac] Bylaws edit for ALS votes
> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 19:18:36 +0200
>
> All,
>
> as per the action points agreed in Luxembourg, I am coming back to you with 
> a proposal for a change in the Bylaws, so to modify the current threshold 
> for the accreditation of At Large Structures.
>
> Currently the ICANN Bylaws say, in paragraph 4(i) of section XI.2:
>
> "Decisions to certify or de-certify an At-Large Structure shall require a 
> 2/3 vote of all of the members of the ALAC and shall be subject to review 
> according to procedures established by the Board."
>
> I would propose to modify this into:
>
> "Decisions to certify or de-certify an At-Large Structure shall require a 
> 2/3 majority among all of the members of the ALAC who cast a valid and 
> non-abstaining vote, provided that at least 9 (nine) members of the ALAC 
> cast a vote (counting abstentions), that at least 7 (seven) calendar days 
> are provided for members of the ALAC to cast their vote, and that 
> appropriate online means are used to allow remote participation in the 
> vote. These decisions shall be subject to review according to procedures 
> established by the Board."
>
> It is a bit complex, but I think that the two additional warranties would 
> be recommendable to prevent capture by a small majority through the 
> so-called "power of the (bad) Chair", ie through 10-minute votes or through 
> not allowing people who can't be physically present to cast their vote.
>
> Otherwise, we could just say 2/3 over at least 9 votes with procedures 
> adopted by the Committee, and cross our fingers.
>
> Comments? Also, could the lawyers please check whether there are any 
> obvious faults in my language? (We would submit this to Jeffreys anyway.)
>
> BTW - At 4(d), Bylaws also mention "The Chair" (singular). I will come back 
> to you about this asap, we need to agree and, if we want to change our 
> officers structure, possibly submit just one comprehensive proposal 
> including all Bylaws edits we would like.
>
> Ciao,
> --
> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to 
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement