Re: [alac] Internal rules

["Jacqueline Morris" <jam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12/21/06, Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> All,
>
> now that Annette is back, I think that we can start the work on our
> internal procedures for officer selection. I would like to settle the
> matter in the next few weeks - I think it is better not to drag it too
> near to the next round of elections.
>
> Before preparing a first draft, I've listed some issues on which I would
> like to poll you all, so that the first draft can already reflect the
> consensus (if no suggestions come, I'll go by my own judgement and then
> we'll start the discussion from it). Here they are:
>
> 1. Which positions are there? Chair, two Vice Chairs, liaisons to GNSO,
> CCNSO, Board; then? Task force members? Should there be consensus / a
> vote in the Committee to create / accept invitations to send someone in
> a task force etc? Should all of these be elective / under the purview of
> the Committee, or some of them be appointed by the Chair at own discretion?
>
> 2. When to vote? I've discovered a clause in the Bylaws that requires
> the Board liaison to be appointed by end October. Do we want to align
> everything with that? Or all other elections happen at the annual
> meeting? (consequence of "when" is: do old or new members vote?)

Given that NomCom appointees are for 2 years, and they are only
onboard at Dec meeting, we might not be able to include them as
candidates if we vote earlier.


> Should we keep vice Chairs separate and elect them later, as people might want
> to serve depending on who is the Chair?

Yes

> How much time do we want betweenclose of nominations and vote? (suggestion, one >week)

That sounds fine


> 3. Terms. One year? Two years? One for some, two for others?

Same issue with ALAC appointees - they are for 2 years - so I suggest
that we have 1 year terms

> Generallyspeaking, the liaisoning work requires some time to catch up, so two
> years might be better (starting from the next term, so it's not about
> current terms). And not getting into a situation like the one in Sao
> Paulo each and every year might be an advantage. Also, should there be
> the option of a recall vote at any time?
Recall vote is interesting - I think yes, but we'd have to have
criteria and apply them, we haven't been applying the ALAC min
participation rules - think we could apply recall rules?

> 4. Requirements. Should officers be ALAC members? Maybe just some core
> positions, eg Chair and Vice Chairs? Other requirements, eg past ALAC
> members?
>
> 5. Voting rules. I assume we might want to keep the ones agreed in Sao
> Paulo, e.g. no proxies but remote vote in a reasonable time window,
> secret ballots, simple majority, but at least 1/3 of the ALAC voting yes
> to make the Chair. I guess we need a quorum, e.g. at least 2/3 of the
> ALAC members casting votes (including abstentions). Suggestions?
That's fine.

> 6. Ties. In case of ties, do we want an immediate tie-break rule (in
> Italy, custom is "the older of age wins") or do we want to revote?
Discuss and revote.

> 7. Black smoke. In case for any reason (no quorum, no candidates, maybe
> a tie...) there's no valid result, what do we do? Reopen nominations and
> revote in, say, two weeks?

Sounds good.
> 8. Nominations. Anything goes? Do we require nomination plus second? Do
> we accept nominations from outside, eg RALOs, or involve them in some way?
Not sure.

> Also, do we want to add something about rules of order in general? eg
> motions, agenda setting etc?
That would be good - I would like agendas and supporting documents at
least 1 week before meetings, teleconferences etc.

> Thanks,
> --
> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...


--
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online