ESADT Transcript 2013-01-15
- Gisella Gruber
Analytics
Unidentified Participant: Carlton's joined the call as well, so we have Cheryl, Alan, Tija (ph), Yaovi, Olivier, Yrjö (ph), and Carlton. We've tried dialing out to Roosevelt and Jose, but there is no response. And I have pinged Dev. I haven't heard from Avri (ph), so I don't think we will be expecting anyone else at this stage.
Yrjö Lanispüro: All right. We can -- we can call that a roll call and start, perhaps. Good evening, good morning, whatever time you have, everyone. We have actually only one item on the agenda, that is Rule 27. And what I suggest is that we first go through those sections we went through last time, but not really start a new discussion, basically just to see -- just to (ph) check whether I understood everything as it should and whether the changes I made, which are visible here in red, that they were those that the meeting agreed to, or agreed upon. And after that, we go to the 27.7 and subsequent sections, and I think that on 27.7 there will be some discussion because I added some material that was not new, but that came from Alan in October.
But first, let's go to the 27.1, and please indicate if there is something wrong, if you want to change. Otherwise, we'll just go through these paragraphs fairly quickly. Alan has raised his hand.
Alan Greenberg: Yes. I'm just pulling up the bylaws right now. My recollection is the number change from five to six -- this is in 27.1 -- and the relationship change from after to before, or something like that. So I think there's one other minor change to make it consistent, but I'll pull it up as we go along. I'll interrupt again.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Okay.
Alan Greenberg: Unless you want to wait.
Yrjö Lanispüro: All right. So 27.2, we put in the word "member" and added one letter to the acronym so that the (inaudible) will be now Board Member Selection Process Committee. I also changed the "retained by the ALAC," or given to, because that's just more logical. But Alan, you have the answer now?
Alan Greenberg: Yes. The wording is at least six months before the date specified for the commencement of the term, so it's no later than six months before the commencement.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Okay, six months--.
Alan Greenberg: --Of the next term I think will be sufficient.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Before the commencement.
Alan Greenberg: Before the date -- commencement of the term. Yes, I -- put -- why don't you leave it right now? I'll send something in e-mail.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Oh, all right, good.
Alan Greenberg: Because the sentence in the by-laws is convoluted and points to something else, so I'll come back with wording that's self-consistent.
Yrjö Lanispüro: All right. So nothing on 27.2. On the 27.3, there we kept the old name, "Board Candidate Evaluation Committee," and there -- actually, there aren't any changes except that there should be a link to an appropriate Web page here at the end. 27.4, Committee Overlap, this was simplified, and we now have that no person who is or was a member of the current DMSPC or BCEC may submit a SOI to the BCEC, (inaudible).
Unidentified Participant: It's tradition of ICANN, yes.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Yes. Alan, you had your--.
Unidentified Participant: --Do you think that's (inaudible) -- sorry, I'm not able to scroll. Is anyone else able to scroll the document?
Yrjö Lanispüro: I am able to scroll, but I -- this is sort of a dictatorial scroll, so I just scroll, and everybody -- yes.
Unidentified Participant: Okay. Okay. Well, that's honest. Just mine's not catching up. It's probably my Internet.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Okay, all right.
Alan Greenberg: Yes, two things. I think we decided to change SOI to Expression of Interest.
Yrjö Lanispüro: That's right. You're right, yes. SOI should be EOI.
Alan Greenberg: EOI, yes. And going back to 27.3, the last sentence really doesn't -- isn't -- I don't think is what we want. The last sentence pointed to the 2010 selection, "Can be found at." Is that what we wanted as the ongoing statement?
Avri: Probably not, which (inaudible).
Yrjö Lanispüro: Perhaps we should just delete words, "In use for the 2010 selection," so it should read "The BCEC operating principles can be found at," and then whatever link.
Alan Greenberg: I like that.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Okay.
Unidentified Participant: Yes, and that can be a fresh link, I think at -- that space does need to be both (inaudible) for the record, edited, and I think better designed, which Mattis (ph) got on his to-do list, along with a million other things. But it isn't that easy to navigate through the bits and pieces there, so I think that needs to be fixed.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Okay.
Eduardo Diaz: (Inaudible) somebody, (inaudible).
Yrjö Lanispüro: Eduardo, are you -- okay.
Unidentified Participant: I can't hear him.
Eduardo Diaz: Yes. Can you hear me now? Okay. (Inaudible.)
Yrjö Lanispüro: Eduardo, your hand was up, but are you--?
Alan Greenberg: --Eduardo, it's Alan. I could hear you very faintly. The others don't seem to be able to hear you at all.
Eduardo Diaz: Okay. I just want -- well, maybe (inaudible) you can repeat with me. I just want to say that during (inaudible) document that we did in the (inaudible).
Yrjö Lanispüro: Alan, did you hear?
Alan Greenberg: Yes. He said we should make it a link to an adjunct document.
Yrjö Lanispüro: All right, yes.
Alan Greenberg: That actually makes some sense.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Good. Yes, good idea.
Alan Greenberg: Yes, that's a good idea.
Unidentified Participant: Yes, that'd be great.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Okay. All right. We then go to 27.5, Procedures. The BMS, the -- and the BCE shall add up (ph) their operating procedures. They shall be published and are subject to ALAC review and approval. The word "approval" is new. Then, we come to this final candidate list, 27.6, and here I added -- first of all, I say they must have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to this list, because they don’t really add. They are -- there is a condition that there has to be support from three RALOs (ph) so that, at this point, this is a suggestion. And then, I added the sentence, "The timetable should allow for consultations and outreach both within and among RALOs. I see Avri's hand is up.
Avri: Somebody had a hand up before me, though, yes, their hand went up before me.
Yrjö Lanispüro: But that's -- Avri, that's Yaovi's. I think--.
Avri: --Okay, but his hand went up before me. That's the only thing I'm saying.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Oh, yes, YA is Yaovi. I'm sorry. Is Yaovi on the call?
Yaovi Atohoun: Yes, I'm on the call. Can I speak?
Yrjö Lanispüro: Yes, please.
Yaovi Atohoun: Yaovi speaking. The line was so bad before, I didn't know if it was from my side. My comment is, of course, 27.6. I would suggest that we think about (inaudible). I would like us to remove it. And the way it is now, I'm thinking that we can bring problems to the BCEC unless -- unless we reform (inaudible), because the last sentence we are saying that there will be added only if they receive the support (inaudible) of (inaudible) of the (inaudible). I could agree with that case if, at the beginning, we put it -- or if at the beginning that that's (inaudible) put in his document that this (inaudible) of support -- approval or support. If not, if (inaudible) is not collected many times a day, they will go back and talk to RALOs and seek their support and bring. So my thought is this may bring problem. So I just want to suggest that we seek (inaudible) carefully maybe if we have time. But I think the (inaudible) is now, this 27.6 I don't think is very, very (inaudible) now. Thank you.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Okay. All right. So maybe we come back to that later. Then, I see Avri's hand up, please.
Avri: Okay, yes. My question had to do with formal action, and you don't then actually define what that formal action is. So you had one suggesting it. Perhaps you're trying to say that it's --only if it's suggested by three of them, or if a suggestion is accepted, but without defining a formal action, I can just see a candidate being suggested by one, getting two other RALOs who nod their head, "Sure," and then The Committee, the Imperial Committee crossing their hands and saying, "Sorry." Where's the formal action?
So if you don't define a formal action, I think it's bogus.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Well, my immediate answer would be that each RALO, I mean, in their rules or procedure, it should appear from there what formal action in their case will mean. But I don't know if anybody else has any reply to Avri on this.
Carlton Samuels: I have my hand up.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Yes, please.
Carlton Samuels: And -- thank you. This is Carlton, for the record.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Carlton. Yes, please.
Carlton Samuels: Thank you, Yrjö. That is what I was going to say, the formal action, what you need to do is to say the formal action is dependent on the RALO procedures and process. They have processes what they consider formal/informal, and they should decide that. I think you should leave it to them to decide which of their formal actions they use to determine whether or not. So I think all you need to do is to make sure that that is clear.
I want to comment on Yaovi's input as to whether or not we should remove the possibility of candidates who were not on the list to -- the BEC list to be formally endorsed by the three RALOs, at least three RALOs to be parachuted into the list. I was one of those who felt strongly that there should be a valve that allows some kind of democratization, I call it, advisedly, of the BEC list. And I think that is one of the ways to do it. I would not object to having another way be articulated as how we do it. But one of the things I was very strongly for, is some opportunity for members who are otherwise perfectly acceptable to be added to the list outside of the BCEC process. Thank you.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Thank you. Alan? Alan, please?
Alan Greenberg: Yes, okay, thank you, a couple of points. Regarding the formal action, I suspect it would be quite adequate to say formal vote. The issue was RALOs often tend to take actions with -- that have less onerous implications, or less important implications, by simply having a straw poll on a call where the number of people at present may not be all right for -- according to their formal rules, and things like that. So the intention of the wording was to make sure it's a decision of the RALO which meets their own rules of procedure.
Now, I think in all cases, a vote is required for that, although perhaps some connect by consensus. But it can't ignore the core eight (ph) rules, and that kind of thing. So Avri may well be right that we should clarify the wording, but the intent was that it be a formal action that meets their own rules of procedure. I suspect that not a lot would be lost by saying formal vote.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Perhaps -- perhaps--.
Alan Greenberg: --With regard to the suggestion of Yaovi and Carlton just spoke to, I'm a little bit confused. The provision here says that, if the RALOs believe there's a candidate that should have been selected by the BCEC, and the BCEC chose not to include that candidate to the final list, they can override. The provision that the person applied simply says we're not looking for people who at the last moment want to say, "Me, too." This is someone who duly considered and answered all the questions, and all of that is on file, and then the RALOs want to override what the BCEC did. So it doesn't stop them and anyone from applying. They just have to get into the process in the right timeframe. So I'm not quite sure what the intent is of dropping the requirement that they have to have applied.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Okay. Perhaps we talk about this first before going to -- going further. Olivier, you have on this point, 27.6, the question of whether the candidates that the RALOs will add, whether they need to have (inaudible) their expression of interest before during this process?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Yrjö. It's Olivier for the transcript record. I absolutely agree with Alan. The need to have sent their SOI prior to the candidate list to the -- well, to the BCEC doing its job. The concern that I have is that you could effectively bypass completely any safeguard with regards to SOIs if one was to be added at the end via an entirely separate track. I'm particularly concerned about this due to the fact that we have several safeguards in place, and some of which -- well, in some extent I guess more information is often available to BCEC people than to the RALOs themselves. This is the way that it was designed, and this is the -- this is effectively how confidentiality runs on some information that is available, or not available, readily out there. And I'm particularly concerned that having a bypass of the whole system will actually be gamed and be used to corrupt the system. Thank you.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Thank you. I also see Cheryl's approval checkmark for this, and that's -- I feel very much the same way as Alan and Olivier explained. So unless Yaovi or anybody else, Carlton, feels very strongly about this, so we could -- I really suggest that we could solve this indefinitely (ph). Thank you.
Carlton Samuels: I -- this is Carlton.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Carlton, yes, please.
Carlton Samuels: I really don't see that you -- the formal acceptance by three of five RALOs could be construed as a run around the safeguards of the BCEC. The issue with the BCEC, as I see it, is a providence of that group. There was a question as to whether or not there was enough formal approach to getting -- deciding who the members were. That was one thing. The other thing was, of course -- and Olivier brought it up. I'm glad he did -- that there is a set of information that is available to BCEC that might not be available to the RALOs. That's what's admitted here. And the fact of the matter is that that exists.
Going back to the RALOs gives an opportunity for that information insofar as that it's possible to be aired and given a second chance. That was the reason why that relief valve was put in there. I think it's unnecessarily narrows the field by saying that the person has to be on the original list for them to be considered by the RALO candidate. It's a relief valve, and I think it's still worthy of acceptance.
Avri: Can I please cut in?
Yrjö Lanispüro: Avri, you have on this point?
Avri: A yes on this point. I have it on other points, too, but yes, I have it on this one. If anybody is talking about getting rid of this procedure, if I understood correctly, because they saw this procedure as a work-around, I would truly object to that. You definitely need the RALO appeal.
Now, I actually have sympathy for Carlton's point of view in terms of democratization, in terms of trying to bring in more community support. I would probably have looked somewhere in between to sort of say that, yes, they do need to have followed the process and gotten all their paperwork in and done that. I think that's an exercise that anybody that wants to be on the Board should go through. It's painful, and you should go through that.
But perhaps one could find another mechanism, whether it was the sign-off of X number of ALSs, or a signed petition, though I know how we hate going out to the people. But some other way of other than three RALOs being the ones to do it, that one could augment. And every time I hear it will be gamed as a reason, I hear, "I'm an insider, and I know what is right." And I think we have to stop using this fear of gaming as a reason to push things away from the people, the at-large Internet users, the members of ALSs. ALSs themselves are the only legitimacy in all of this. And to say, if we go to them it will be gamed, the thing is, you go to them and figure out how not to get gamed. So I don't think that Olivier's reason that, if it's not the insiders and the B with Cs doing it, then it will be gamed is at all a valid reason. Thank you.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Thank you. Alan, please?
Alan Greenberg: Yes, a couple of things. I still don't quite understand the escape valve part that Carlton was talking about. All we're saying here is you must have completed the paperwork, and then you're outright rejected by the BCEC, and the RALOs can override it. So, I mean, certainly we can't have a candidate who's put up to the Board who hasn't completed the public parts of the expression of interest, which are going to be used as part of the election process, because most of it is made public, so that's going to have to be completed.
And to say it had to have been completed in a reasonable timeframe, I don't see why that limits the opportunities. And the private parts I believe are potentially -- sorry, someone's talking -- the private parts I believe are used by legal staff to do the due diligence on the candidate. So I don't think we can bypass the process, and now we're saying, ah, someone can come in late, and I really don't see the merit of that. This whole process is going to be a long, elongated one, and I'm not quite sure what we're debating over.
With regard to what Avri was saying, again, a little bit confused, because the formal action of the RALOs means, by definition, you have to go to the ALSs and find out what they think. So this does involve the ALSs. It's just being done hierarchically through the RALOs, which is how most of our operations work. So it's not a matter of not trusting the ALSs. We have to trust the ALSs, to some extent, because that's the only RALOs -- the only way a RALO can make a formal decision. Thank you.
Avri: Can I comment specifically on that?
Yrjö Lanispüro: I'd rather keep to this order we have here now, so I will come to you in a while. So Olivier now, please.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you again, Yrjö. Actually, if Avri really wants to answer, I'm happy to defer, if it's--.
Avri: --(Inaudible) was also before me.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Sorry, so -- sorry, yes, so I didn't see Tijani. Okay. Well, I'll say what I need to say. There is a formal action of at least three of the five RALOs is something of importance, I think. And as Alan said, that actually equates to ALSs being involved. And in fact, I think that you need to really note that it's formal action and not just formal notification. Once could have said formal notification from the chairs of at least three of the five RALOs, and then leave it to the chairs to whether they would wish to come back to poll (ph) or do whatever they want to do in their region. Here, we are asking for formal action, and this effectively entices more than just the chair to their -- themselves without consulting anyone. And I would hope that there are ways in RALOs, and there are methods in RALO, to define what formal action is.
Now, with regards to being screaming the insider thing by saying that we don't wish to have a way to bypass the real checking that is done by the BCEC, I think that you do have to remember, this organization is going to continue growing. I personally know of at least one person who was a con man, and who was very high up in the ICANN volunteer structure, in fact even working with the president in several things. That person was found out after a while, but do not want someone to come from our community to be able to go through this without any background check. Thank you.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Okay, thank you. Tijani, please?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you, Yrjö. I really don't understand how it can be more democratic to make people that the RALO will add, or suggest to add, not follow the normal process and not submit the EOI on time. I think that if the RALO wants someone to be selected, they have to push him from the beginning to submit his EOI. And if he is not selected, they can suggest to add him later. So I don't understand where is the democracy, where is more -- how it is more democratic to accept people that we didn't submit a EOI. I am really confused, and I need to understand. Thank you.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Thank you. And I see green checkmarks from Alan and Cheryl on this. Okay. Avri has the floor now, and after that, I think we have to come to some conclusion on this -- the question on whether those candidates who are going to be, like -- selected by RALOs, whether they need to have put their expression of interest in at the same time as others. Avri, please?
Avri: Yes, thank you. I actually agree, as I said before, with the need to submit the expression of interest. One of the things that when -- was in response to Alan about how it could be more democratic by including the ALSs, for example -- and you're going to find that most of my arguments come down to the same insider and how do we manage to get broader than insiders in doing votes. And having spent a lot of time in other parts of ICANN as an ICANN insider, I'm very, very aware of how, as insiders, we get to control things even though (inaudible) we're controlling things, is, for example, you could have someone where many ALSs from across many of the RALOs did support a candidate for whatever reason, but that in no RALO were they able to be the majority.
And so, therefore, a strong minority that existed through four or five of the RALOs, pick a number, 100 ALSs -- I don't even know if there are 100 ALSs -- were to sign a petition for someone who would have submitted an expression of interest, that would be a way of further expanding, further democratizing, because it means the minority, if it's a common minority through many RALOs, they aren't suppressed. They actually have a way to work together even if they cannot motivate their reach. So that's the kind of mechanism I was looking for.
And the final thing, as opposed to formal action, since I doubt we're going to come back this way, perhaps using your notion of subsidiarity that you're trying to give RALOs on this, as action as defined in the RALO's operating procedures, and that it's just that formal is such a hand-wavy word that I can always say that something wasn't done formally, if I really want to, as a chair. Thank you.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Alan, please?
Alan Greenberg: Yes, I support Avri in terms of changing the word "formal action" to something more definitive. I think formal vote as defined by the RALO rules of procedure is quite clear, and I'm happy.
With regard to Avri's last suggestion, we have a real problem there, and it's the same problem as why the GNSO right now has obscure voting rules between houses, because the weighting is different between the two houses. So the GNSO has no vote where you can simply count counselors hands up. And the same problem comes up in terms of ALSs and RALOs. Some RALOs in particularly Latin America does not weight ALSs equally. The ALSs, by their own rules, are weighted based on what country they come from, and a country cannot have more weight than another country even if there's a lot of ALSs in it. And that rule -- whether that will stay or not in the next go-round, I don't know. But right now, that changes the dynamic significantly and says you can't consider all ALSs across the organization as having equal weight. Thank you.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Okay. Now, I -- we're now half an hour into this conference, which is supposed to be the last one we have. And I think we should get 20 -- with 27.6. First of all, I'll say that I think most of the people who have spoken are in favor of keeping the wording as it refers to when the candidates need to put in their expression of interest, that is to say RALOs can only suggest candidates who have previously submitted an EOI, expression of interest, to the BCEC during the selection process. And then, this formal action would change it, as Alan suggested, you can put that as an e-mail message to me, what I think you said as defined by the RALO rules of procedure.
And please also note that there is this sentence about the timetable, which should allow for consultations and outreach both within and among RALOs. Consultations and outreach within RALO is of course -- is about consultations that take into account the ALSs. I don't think that the -- we can't really -- within the framework of these rules, we're not able to micro-manage the RELOs because they all have their own rules of procedures, but at least we can encourage them to have consultations within them.
So I'm -- yes, Tijani, please?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, thank you. There is nothing to do with the rule of procedure of RALOs here in this sentence. It is about consultation. So it is -- encourages to have consultations within the RALO and also among RALOs. It is a good thing, I think, because if RALOs are -- agree on some things together, I think it will be closer to the truth rather than only one agree on it. Thank you.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Thank you. Meanwhile, in the chat, Alan says that he's finding the word "suggests" a little bit soft here in the beginning of this paragraph. What about to put forward? Would that be better?
Alan Greenberg: I like that better.
Yrjö Lanispüro: To put forward, okay.
Alan Greenberg: Yes. "Suggests" implies someone may say now we're not going to take the suggestion, and it doesn't have that connotation -- shouldn't have that connotation. So yes, I think that's better.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Or Cheryl says "propose." But anyway, we'll put something there that is stronger than "suggests." Now, if we would be ready with 27.6, we should now use the remaining time for 27.7. And it's -- there were a lot of questions, of course, in the -- on these confluence pages, because all of a sudden here what appeared -- appears to be completely new stuff to augment the previous 27.7, and this of course -- these suggestions from Alan's contribution way back in October.
Let's -- perhaps we can go now for these additions, B, C and D, one by one and see if they can be accepted. And I see Avri's hand up, please.
Avri: I think if 27.7 is open for discussion, after I was declared that it was closed last week when I tried to make a suggestion that I have been trying to get you folks to listen to for two years, I suggest that we also consider the 27.7A that I am suggesting that says the electorate for the final election should be the 15 ALAC members, plus the ALS proper -- primary representative, each getting a single vote. I think if we're going to consider adding all kinds of insider protection to 27.7, such as forced voting of representatives, then we also should consider democratizing it. And to say last week that it was closed to changes, and then all of a sudden this week make it open to insiders' changes, is really hard to under -- well, I'll say it's not that hard to understand, but it's impossible to accept. Thank you.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Thank you, Avri. Olivier, please.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thanks very much, Yrjö, and I wanted to respond to Avri's suggestion here, and I know that she feels particularly strongly about this. But I am particularly concerned about providing the majority, I guess, of all the votes to -- directly to at-large structures. If you look at the ALSs and you look at the 15 ALAC members, you have a rapport of 151 ALSs and 15 ALAC members. That's 10 to 1 without really any kind of safeguard if any significant number of ALSs decide to block vote, which is something that has happened in the past. The key to then getting someone on the Board of ICANN would be to basically create at-large structures under various guises, names, and organizations and so on throughout the world, and within a year you can get enough of a stealth force to be able to send someone directly onto the Board through the at-large.
We've seen what happens when you have concerted attacks in 2003, if I remember correctly, or maybe 2002. It was a long time ago. I just do not want this experience to happen again. Thank you.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Thank you, Olivier. Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Thank you. We may well need to look at these processes again. And if there's a significant will in the ALAC, and that means in the RALOs, then that can certainly happen. I don't believe this drafting team, which is a subset of a subset, can revamp the rules which were set based on very, very significant discussion and extensive discussion two years ago, or whenever it was. I mean, all of these things were on the table at that point, and decisions were made, and trade-offs were made. And I don't think it's within the scope of this group to try to make that kind of radical change. It may well be that we need to make it before the next election, but I don't think this is the venue for doing that.
And just to answer Avri, what -- the suggestions I made in October did not introduce a new concept of directed voting. There was very significant directed voting that was done last time as decisions of the RALOs. In their own democratic way, they decided that some votes would be directed. That's not a new concept. All we're saying here is something that was said last time but for some reason didn't make it into the written rules that, if there's a directed vote -- there's an "if" there -- then it must be by formal action, or formal vote of the ALS and not, again, a random choice of the chair or the three people who happen to be on a teleconference at any given time.
So let's be straight about what we're talking about here, that there was no intent to have a significant change implied by the directed voting. That was a reality in the last election, whether we like it or not, and some people liked it, and some people didn't. So -- but if we're going to change the overall concept of how we're selecting the Board members, that can't be done by a drafting team of a working group, which is a subset of the -- of, at-large, an ALAC to begin with. Thank you.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Thank you. Thank you, Alan, and I very much agree as a pinholder (ph) of this team. I mean, we -- first of all, we don't have the mandate for the -- for this democratic revolution, but we also -- we don't have the time, we don't have this preparation, and things -- actually there should be lot of things happening before we could make that major step. So what I suggest, and I really -- I'm asking you to concentrate on the 27.7 as it is now, and say your opinions whether this B, C and D are necessary and if they are correctly formulated. Avri, please?
Avri: Yes, please. I actually object to that characterization, because I went to the chair of ALAC and said how do I bring this up, and the chair of ALAC said you take it to the ROP (ph). So I went to the ROP, and the ROP chair says, "How do I bring this up? Oh, that's being handled in the drafting team." So I go to the drafting team, and I'm told, "Oh, no, no, drafting team doesn't have the scope to do it," that classic insider run-around, thank you very much. So I totally -- with you saying it's not its scope, when I've been told that you're the only ones for whom it was in scope to make this kind of recommendation, is once again kind of what I'm talking about.
In terms of Olivier's point that said, but then anybody can -- first of all, I'm assuming that you're going to be strict about who you let become an ALS, and so this notion of 1,000 ALSs will happen and they will take over the vote, first of all, they'll only get to vote on the people that the BCEC and perhaps the RALOs manage to put out there as candidates. So it's not willy-nilly that the revolution is going to happen and all these people are going to come in, and they're going to take the process away from us insiders. It's -- no, you are the ones that define who gets to be an ALS. You are the ones that do all that.
And finally, on the -- there's actually two more points, and one is on the notion of the directed vote being new. I know it was done last time, but it wasn't part of the operating procedures. Making directed vote an item inside the directed procedures is one of the issues that I have a problem with. I'm not trying to say that you, Alan, created this out of thin air. What I'm trying to say is there isn't a notion of directed vote. If RALOs in their independent are doing that, that's a problem, I think, but that's their problem. So I don't think -- and I forgot what my other point is, so I guess you don't have to listen to it.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Okay, thank you. There was a suggestion by Cheryl in the chat, saying can we recommend to the ALAC that this issue is looked at as a priority issue with the whole at-large. This is clearly something that should be taken -- I mean, there should be different type of look taken on the whole issues. So that would mean that we now would concentrate on 27.7, putting it here. And again, I would like to ask you if the 27.7 B, C and D are correctly formulated, should there be any changes, and if so, what. Tijani, please?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, thank you, Yrjö. I agree with Alan that the (inaudible) is nothing new, I think. It was applied during the last vote, the last election. That's why -- and it wasn't in the procedure. I--.
Yrjö Lanispüro: --Could you -- excuse me, Tijani. Could you speak up louder? Because I have hard -- really hard time hearing you.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes. Do you hear me better now? No? Do you hear me better?
Yrjö Lanispüro: Okay, yes.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Okay, thank you. So I said that the directed vote was applied during the last election, which is nothing new. And since it was applied, since it exists, I think it is better to put it in the rules so that we have a rules point is not (inaudible). And the first thing that I want to emphasize on, any ALAC member is acting on his or her own behalf from the moment that he is selected or appointed as ALAC member. That's why I don't accept -- I don't agree that any ALAC member votes by directed vote.
But for the RALO chair, since he's representing the RALO, I think that it is possible to use the directed vote. That's why I am proposed to delete D and to modify C accordingly. Thank you.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Thank you very much, Tijani, for the suggestions. So you propose to delete in 27.7 C, this possibility of an ALAC member being under this sort of direction. Any opinions about that, Alan?
Alan Greenberg: Yes, certainly. I happen to believe that ALAC members should vote according to what they believe, guided by their RALOs and by their colleagues, but they should have a free vote based on their beliefs. That was not a rule. And I happen -- although I agree, I think that RALOs should not direct the vote of their ALAC members. Some RALOs decided, rather strongly last time, that they must do that, and this rule says -- that I'm proposing says, if the RALO decides to direct a vote, then I would recommend it be done in proportion if that's possible.
If the group wants to put a rule in saying ALAC members cannot have their votes directed, I am quite happy to remove the -- this new statement, but I haven't heard that being proposed and accepted by a large number of people. And certainly, several ALSs -- several RALOs last time, at least two, I believe, did direct their votes, in some cases even their nom com appointees followed the direction. So the changes have to go together. So I don't like the concept of directing ALAC votes, but if they're going to be done, I was suggesting that we try to make sure that the ALSs have their will go through to the final vote. Thank you.
Yrjö Lanispüro: So you would basically -- you would like to keep C as it is.
Alan Greenberg: Well, if we're not going to add a new rule saying ALAC members can't have their votes directed by the RALO, then I'm happy to delete it, because it no longer has any meaning. If there's only one vote that can be directed, you obviously can't split it going in two directions.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Yes, okay. Olivier, please.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Yrjö. It's Olivier for the transcript record. I'm looking at 27.7 B and seeing that, if a member of the electorate is a candidate, the RALO for his or her region will name a replacement. I don't quite understand how an ALAC member that is selected by the nom com and that might be a candidate would then be replaced by someone selected by a RALO.
Alan Greenberg: I can address that, if you'd like.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Yes, please.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: (Inaudible.) So that's one. You can come back to me after that.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Yes. Alan, if you take this point, I will then -- then Olivier continues.
Alan Greenberg: Yes. The answer is very simple. It's not optimal, but the nom com is not going to name a new replacement on short-term just for the purposes of voting. And therefore, it allows the region to have a vote, an equal vote without treating different candidates differently based on whether they can vote for themselves or not.
So it errs on the favor of giving the regions their vote -- the votes that should be counted from them in the selection of the Board member instead of disenfranchising someone, and it makes sure that all candidates have an equal stance, that is you don't have a situation where some can vote for themselves and some cannot. So it is not perfect, but it seemed to be the only way to address the inequity. And that's my only answer.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Okay. Olivier, please?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you, Yrjö. It's Olivier for the transcript. So, effectively, we are doing away with a candidate naming someone to replace them as a voter.
Alan Greenberg: No, we're not. We're -- right now, if a -- take the example of last year. Sebastien (ph) had -- could not vote for himself, according to the by-lays, and Yrjö named a replacement for him. If -- I could not vote for myself, and I -- since I was a nom com appointee, I could not have someone -- I could not be named -- have someone named to replace me, so one vote was missing altogether. And if a RALO chair had been running, that RALO chair could simply vote for themselves without having a replacement at all. So we have a number of inequities, which I was trying to address not in a perfect way but in a way that seemed to provide the regional balance that we feel is so important within ALAC.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Okay. Olivier, you want to continue, or--?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: --Yes, please, Yrjö, with your permission. Okay, thank you, Yrjö. It's Olivier for the transcript. So then, next, 27.7 B, and I accept Alan's explanation that -- it makes sense. 27.7 C, if a vote -- and that's effectively the directed votes -- I'm really concerned about block voting. I'm very concerned that this actually emphasizes the concept of voting for your own region's candidate and pits one region after another. I think that we should be looking at voting for the best candidate and not start to have block voting, with one region voting for one candidate and another one for another candidate. It's just not something that's constructive. Thank you.
Alan Greenberg: I -- Yrjö--.
Yrjö Lanispüro: --Alan, please--.
Alan Greenberg: --whenever you want, I can respond.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Yes, yes, please. Go ahead.
Alan Greenberg: Yes, okay. Just to be clear, this was not advocating block voting. I dislike block voting. I think it was an aberration. But if we are going to have block voting, then -- or not block voting, I'm sorry -- directed voting, then I believe it must be a formal decision of the ALSs and not just the decision of three people on a teleconference who happen to be there at that time. That's the only impact. The only import of this sentence is to say, if there is directed voting, and I'm happy to say we don't allow it, then it must be an actual action of the region and not an ad hoc action of a small number of insiders, and more particularly perhaps just the chair. Thank you.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Thank you. Now, Carlton has been waiting for a long time, so please, Carlton.
Carlton Samuels: Thank you, Yrjö. This is Carlton Samuels for the record. I declare, and I've long declared, that I abhor directed votes. I will not accept (inaudible) from anybody in voting as an ALAC member. I do not believe that we should discredit or disqualify a voting member as a candidate simply because they are a candidate. They are an Internet user first, a member of an ALS second, and they should be accorded the right to vote in their own behalf. Whatever the mechanism that we can devise to let people get through to people that directed votes is inimical (ph) to the practice that we want to instill here, I think we should take it. But this -- I know Alan is trying to walk between the raindrops with this one. I don't see how you're going to do that unless and until you allow those two things. Thank you.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Thank you. Alan?
Alan Greenberg: I think I said it before, that I'm delighted to say we don't allow block voting. All I'm saying is if there is block -- not block, sorry. Every time I say block, I mean directed. If we do have directed voting, if we don't outlaw it, all I'm saying is it must be a formal action of the ALSs and it can't be an ad hoc action of a few people sitting in the leadership office of the RALO. That's the only import of this. And if people want to say there can't be any directed votes, I'm delighted. But that's -- wasn't the conclusion we came to last time. Thank you.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Tijari, please.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, thank you, Yrjö. First of all, I think that there is a conflict of interest, or there is something abnormal if the candidate vote. And I think that the B is as well as you wrote it. But for the directed vote, why we included the chair of the RALO, it is because we want to bring the voice of the RALOs into this selection. And the chair of the RALO, I think it is normal that he do a directed vote. It is normal because he is voting on behalf of the RALO. But the ALAC members are voting on their own behalf. So it is not (inaudible) directed vote. It is a specific benefit what -- or the RALO chair if the RALO decides so. Thank you.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Thank you. Yaovi, please.
Yaovi Atohoun: Thank you. Yaovi speaking. In the (inaudible) just say that (inaudible)--.
Yrjö Lanispüro: --Yaovi? Yaovi? I think that we lost Yaovi. But from -- what I gathered from the discussion and from the green checkmarks that were flashed on the screen at various points here, that we would -- actually we would -- we could delete the ALAC member from C, that is to say that we -- when we talk about directed votes, we just speak about the votes of the RALO chairs, but not directed vote of ALAC members, because I have sensed that this -- the idea of the vote of the ALAC members being directed from the region where they actually come from is something that many people don't like. So that could be a solution here.
The other problem here is still of course the -- in B, that the -- if a member of the electorate candidate who in good use his or her -- could be the voting member in his or her stead -- okay, Yaovi, are you now there? No? Olivier, please.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Yrjö. It's Olivier for the transcript. I understand what Alan is trying to do here, and he definitely is trying to be helpful in trying to make sure that there is a formal (inaudible) on the RALO when a directed vote is made, but I agree with Tijani that this should only apply to the RALO chair. And then, I do wonder whether the -- it is down to the ALAC rules of procedure to decide what the decision should be, or how a decision should be made on the RALOs themselves with regards to this. So that's a question I do ask myself.
And finally, mentioning a directed vote and also including ALAC member in the same paragraph does tend to then tempt the devil and get the votes to actually end up being directed. And although you might say, well, some ALAC members would have directed votes and some might not have directed votes, I'm then concerned that, due to the impure mathematics of it all, with the 20 people that would be voting, 15 ALAC plus the five RALO chairs, and with enough directed votes being openly given, that completely takes out then the confidentiality of the votes for those ALAC members that would not have a directed vote. So again, I'm against the directed vote. Thank you.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Thank you. I think Alan is--.
Alan Greenberg: --I'm delighted to remove ALAC member reference there, but then I believe we need a statement that says ALAC members cannot have their votes directed by RALOs, because otherwise, in the absence of that, we're ending up with a situation where a RALO can direct a vote, and they can do it without any formal action of the ALAC -- of the RALO. And that's the aberration that we've -- that at the time the original rules were written, we found worse.
Yrjö Lanispüro: That's absolutely true.
Alan Greenberg: So I'm quite delighted to say that the ALAC vote cannot be directed by the RALO, but if we -- in the absence of saying that, and the belief by RALOs which is being demonstrated in the last election that they can direct ALAC votes and that they should direct ALAC votes, then I think requiring the formal action. So I'm fully in support of not mentioning ALAC members there, but it has to be hand-in-hand with another rule. Otherwise, you're potentially directing a significant number of votes by potentially a clique of one or two people, which I think was not the intention in this process. It's -- that's about as far removed from democratization as one can imagine at that point.
Yrjö Lanispüro: This is good.
Alan Greenberg: Now, by the way, if we're going to say you cannot direct votes, that's a substantial enough change that I don't think this group can do it, but we can make a strong recommendation for the ALACs to add that provision.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Yes, that's good. That could be a way around it, because then -- that is to say we would delete this ALAC member from the sub-point C and talk just about RALO chair. But then, there would be this recommendation to the ALAC pointing out that the ALAC member should not be under this direction.
But then, of course, there is the point that Olivier took up, and that is that is it actually our business in this -- in writing these ALAC rules, to say -- to specify how RALOs make their decisions. Of course, we would like to make them formally following all the rules, and so on and so forth, but is it actually something that we have to say here. Is Yaovi still--?
Yaovi Atohoun: --Yes, Yaovi is back.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Okay. Please, please, yes.
Yaovi Atohoun: Thank you very much. Like, how a misunderstanding of directing a vote, because in this chat I put a comment based on the understanding -- my understanding that saying a direct or directed belief, like you -- the vote is under (inaudible), that was my understanding. This is why I was saying that the ALAC members, least we take (inaudible), ALAC member only -- no, the electorate -- if the electorate -- only the RALO chair can receive instruction to vote, but not the 15 ALAC members. The reason why I say that is that we can have the implication. This is a way to consider also the ALAC. And then, I was thinking about a mechanism where we should be sure that the RALO chair voting is really bringing up the voice of the ALSs.
I'm not against the vote of the ALSs, but the only problem I have is that, even if one day we have to come up with this option of the ALS voting, we should also have another mechanism in place simply because, if in one region we have, like, 1,000 ALSs, and then on the other regions we have like maybe 100 ALSs, this may be a problem. So this is why I said that. I will agree that we find a mechanism that ensures that what the RALO chair is saying is on behalf of the ALSs. So in the comment, I want to be sure that I have the correct understanding that that vote is a vote made on the base of recommendations from other people. Thank you.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Thank you very much. Tijani, please.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, thank you. Two points, Yrjö. First of all, I think that I do agree with Alan that we need to mention that the ALAC members couldn't use a directed vote.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Sorry, could you repeat? And could you speak up? Because it's really hard to hear.
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, that I fully agree with Alan that we have to mention that the ALAC members couldn't use a directed vote. I suggest that, in C, you remove the ALAC members, and D will be in the future all ALAC members cannot receive ALS (ph) votes. That's the first point.
And when we say that, we are not deciding on behalf of the RALO. We are not using their right in the decision. Because any ALAC member, when appointed or when selected, he's working in the ALAC on his own behalf. He's not -- he's representing the region, but he's not acting on behalf of the RALO. And this may have to apply for the election, too, of the selection of the Board members, too. So we are not deciding for them. It is only to make things coherent.
For the RALO chair, it is their decision, the RALO decision, if they want to make directed vote or not. We will not decide for them. But we have to mention the case when we (inaudible), but while I agree, Alan, to put it here. Thank you very much.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Thank you. Alan? Alan, please?
Alan Greenberg: Thank you, yes. We're not hearing a lot of advocates for directed voting for ALAC members here, so certainly in this group there seems to be, if not unanimity, then a strong feeling. I do hope that the people in this group will go back to their RALOs and convince the rest of them, because of the people defending no directed votes for ALAC members here, each of their regions had directed votes. So there's a discontinuity between the people on this call and what their RALOs did last time. So I hope people will be willing to have that battle within their own region and win, but I fully support it. If we want to have those two rules, then Tijani is right. We replace D, which no longer has any meaning because there's only one directed vote, and replace D with a statement saying ALAC member votes can't be directed.
So I think that's fully consistent. You elect people, you select people to sit on the ALAC to act as your behalf, just like we select legislatures and members of Parliament to act on our behalf. So I have no problem at all with that conclusion. Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Yes. Made that suggestion too often.
Yrjö Lanispüro: All right. So can I suggest that the -- so the changes would be that the -- in C, we would not mention an ALAC member. Is it if a vote of RALO chair is to be directed, decision needs to be a formal decision of the RALO, according to these rules. And then, D, as it is now, will be suppressed, and it will be replaced by a situation that the vote of the ALAC members cannot be directed. However, we should formulate it in a better way, but that would be the idea, and that would be the 27.17. Alan, please?
Alan Greenberg: No, sorry, my hand is down, and I was just putting a tick mark up.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Okay. All right. Well, thank you. I think we have these elements of 27.7 now.
Alan Greenberg: Yrjö, I just -- I think we do need to call out to the ALAC that that last change, the D, is not a substantive change, but it goes against what was decided last time around that allowed it, so we do have to call it out to the ALAC as we're presenting these documents.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Okay. Okay. Now, we are -- can I ask the staff, was it a one-hour or one and a half hour call?
Unidentified Participant: It was one hour.
Unidentified Participant: One hour.
Yrjö Lanispüro: One hour, yes. So I think that we are -- we should stop now. We need one more call, because, first of all, we need to go through 27.8. Before that, I would like to ask everybody to take a look at 27.8, whether there are any real needs of changing this rather technical text.
And the other thing that we have to talk about is, of course, recall. So for these purposes, we still need one more call. But -- okay, we have a -- Tijani?
Tijani Ben Jemaa: Yes, Yrjö. Now, I do believe that we need to put back 27.10. It keeps (inaudible) item, and we need it. He has (inaudible) in the rules. Thank you.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Okay, 27.10 was -- they were really transitory rules or stipulations because of the last time, but I put it back there. I put it back there that we take a look at it. Thank you.
And the last one, Olivier, please?
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Thank you very much, Yrjö. It's Olivier for the transcript. I'm just looking at the summary minutes and action items. I'm not seeing the action item which was suggested by Avri, which was to put 27.7A in brackets and refer it to the ALAC.
Alan Greenberg: I -- Olivier, I think what Cheryl suggested was that we bring to the ALAC the need to decide whether we want to revisit this again, but let's not make it part of this revision of the rules of procedure or we're not going to make our February deadline.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Yes. And I mean, as far as I'm concerned, I don't really want to put anything in square brackets. I got enough of those square brackets in some U.N. meetings. Avri?
Avri: Yes -- no, in which case I have strong objections. As I say, for two years I've been trying to get this discussed. I finally got to the point where it's discussed, and now it's being punted to the point where we won't talk about it before this year's election. We're going to push it off for another election. I think that this text should be bracketed and that that conversation should be held. What Cheryl suggested I thought was that this discussion be that this drafting team would suggest -- would recommend that this issue be dealt with before the upcoming election, and that would be bracketing the text.
Alan Greenberg: Avri, for the record, that's exactly what I just said. I didn't say after the election. I said not part of the adoption of these rules, because that -- with the intention to have that done was to have that done before Beijing, and have it done by the end of -- by the last day of February. And that's not going to happen, or a full discussion of the ALAC before that. But yes, the intention -- what Cheryl said and what I said would be before the next election, not put it off till after the election.
Yrjö Lanispüro: Yes, it's -- Cheryl recommended that this would be looked at as a priority issue, priority issue, and -- but we have to keep these things apart. This is a drafting team, which is a sub-team of the ROP, rule of procedure team, and so on and so forth. And that kind of changes which Avri talked about is just not the province. It's not within the mandate of this group. We do our job, but then, at the same time, we bring this recommendation to ALAC. And square brackets, how helpful as they have been in -- sometimes in Geneva, they don't help in this process. We have to do our job, but then, at the same time, we have to ring some bells in saying that something more is needed, but it is not our job to do.
Avri: It is your job. I was told it is your job. If it's not bracketed, then it's just going to get lost, because you're going to say, "Well, we already have our rules for this time," where if it's bracketed, that causes it to actually be talked about. Otherwise, it's just another spin around the wheel. It's just another way to spin it off to some future time and say, "Eh, I'm sorry." Without bracketing it, you're basically setting this election -- because the rules are made. You've already offered them. It was, according to everyone, it was this team's job to make recommendations on this, and it wasn't to be talked about anywhere else until this team came back.
So I find it really problematic that you're -- I think it's nice that you're saying put it on the agenda at some point, but if this text isn't bracketed, it'll just linger until it's too late, and then everyone will go, "Well, you know, it wasn't anybody's job, so maybe next time. Good luck." I've been in ICANN a long time--.
Yrjö Lanispüro: --Thank you. Thank you, Avri. Alan, please.
Alan Greenberg: Yes. I guess there's no way we're going to convince Avri. Avri, if any ALAC member can bring something onto the agenda and have it discussed, and you're hearing from me, you're hearing from Cheryl, who may not be an ALAC member but has a fair amount of sway over this, that the intention is to do it before the next election. If you don't have any ALAC member who's willing to raise this on your behalf, then I think the chances of this succeeding are not large. If you do, then any ALAC member can put it on the agenda.
Avri: Well, but that's the insiders again. I'm talking about taking it to the at-large. It's a bunch of insiders.
Yrjö Lanispüro: All right, okay. I think that the arguments have been (inaudible) here. The -- so I would like to end this call now. I would like to thank everybody. And I will put -- I will make the corrections that were pointed out and write this 27.7 in the form that is -- that I feel were agreed to and accepted by the members -- by the members of this drafting team. And I'll ask the staff to prepare a new doodle (ph) for one more meeting for wrapping up the 27, and then also taking a look at the recall.
Thank you very much, and good night, and good day, and whatever you have. Thank you.
Avri: Thank you.
Olivier Crépin-Leblond: Bye-bye.