[alac] Re: [alac-admin] Pending ALAC administrative changes
- To: ICANN At-Large - Denise Michel <michel@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [alac] Re: [alac-admin] Pending ALAC administrative changes
- From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 19:49:18 -0400
I agree with the substance of the change, but I wonder if it's
procedurally worthwhile, given the effort to change a bylaw that
won't make significant difference once changed (i.e., it makes little
difference to ICANN power structures whether we approve none or all
of the few ALSs who apply -- none of them has any power). If we
have a limited amount of Board attention, wouldn't we be better off
spending it asking for more significant changes to the way ALAC works
and influences ICANN?
At 07:11 PM 9/23/2005, ICANN At-Large - Denise Michel wrote:
* Changing voting requirements for ALS certification:
Per the ALAC's discussions, the following bylaw change is proposed
regarding ALS certification. Bylaw changes must be posted for
public comment for 21 days and then approved by ICANN's
Board. ICANN's legal counsel has been asked to expedite action on
this. Prior to Board consideration, I'll draft a staff paper on the
proposed change. It would be useful to include in the paper the
ALAC's voting procedures. Based on email discussion thus far, they
would be: ALAC chair calls a vote on an ALS application; at least 7
calendar days will be provided for ALAC members to cast their vote,
and appropriate online means will be used to allow remote
participation in the vote.
Please let me know if you have more/different suggestions for the
ALAC's voting guidelines or any further comments on voting.
Section 2, paragraph 4(i):
... 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. .....
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 vote, provided at least 9 members of the ALAC cast a vote
according to procedures adopted by the Committee. These decisions
shall be subject to review according to procedures established by the Board."
* Stiall awaiting ALAC action is:
- Establishing minimum participation requirements for ALAC members
- Establishing new ALAC role descriptions and options
ALAC members were to make proposals on these via email for
consideration/finalization in Vancouver.
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society