October 2014 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 6, 2014

Oct. 6, 2014

This is getting to be interesting. So far, I think that we have general agreement on how to handle all votes except a certification where the RALO is undecided. Here we have multiple positions. 1. Secret but staff/chair can access details 2. Everything secret. 3. Everything published. Alan At 03/10/2014 01:42 PM, Fatima Cambronero wrote: >Dear All, > >I agree with Sandra on this. > >I expressed in our last teleconference a similar >point: our roles are as representatives from our RALOs. > >I think whenever possible, our votes in >certification and decertification processes >should be open and transparent and be available to be consulted for our RALOs. > >I believe it is easy to deal with happy people, >when we voted in the same sense that our RALO >expressed. But the main skill of a leader is >dealing with less happy people when we voted on >contrary sense of their "mandate". If we can >explain why our votes were in different sense, >we don't be worried because some RALO members don't smile us anymore. > >Just my 2 cents. > > > >Best Regards, > >Fatima > >2014-10-03 14:39 GMT-03:00 Alberto Soto ><<mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org>asoto(a)ibero-americano.org>: >Again, I agree Alan. Not all measures of a democratic government, are ideal. >Seek balance, governance and better functionality. >Regards > >Alberto > >-----Mensaje original----- >De: ><mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Alan Greenberg >Enviado el: viernes, 03 de octubre de 2014 02:30 p.m. >Para: sandra hoferichter; Evan Leibovitch >CC: ALAC >Asunto: Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes > >Most votes would be open. Our rules allow >someone to explain their vote if they wish >(particularly a no or abstain). For those few >votes where there is no recommendation from the >RALO, the vote would be secret, BUT we would be >able to privately request a rationale for the vote. > >You are correct (in my view) that in an ideal >world, the ALAC members, who have an obligation >to support the ALAC, At-Large and ICANN, could >vote against the wishes of some in their RALO, >and could justify this. The same is true for >personnel votes, and some parts of ICANN have those open as well. > >But I am not sure ALAC members are paid enough >to subject them to possible harassment if we can easily remedy it. > >Alan > >At 03/10/2014 01:17 PM, sandra hoferichter wrote: > >Hi all, my thoughts on one point. I understand or self as being > >privileged in terms that most of us are elected by their RALOs to > >represent their interest. They put trust in us. Sometimes we have to > >take decisions such as certification and decertification. I see the > >point of personal relationships within a RALO - which might be > >challenged depending on he vote. BUT as we have a certain > >responsibility here I think all of us should take that burden to > >justify a decision personally within the region and globally as a > >group. This would be in my POV the most democratic approach. > > > >Best Sandra > > > >(Note: This message was send from my iPhone - I do apologise for any > >misspelling.) > > > > > Am 03.10.2014 um 17:52 schrieb Evan > Leibovitch <<mailto:evan@telly.org>evan(a)telly.org>: > > > > > > On 3 October 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg > <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> You are saying that your suggestion for for 2 would be: > > >> > > >> 2. We have general agreement that for certification votes where > > >> there is definitive regional advice, we should have standard open > > >> votes. For cases where there is not definitive regional > > advice, how ALAC members vote should > > >> not be published. > > > > > > Ã¢â¹Yes, that is a clearer expression of my iinternt. Thanks.Ã¢â¹ > > > > > > Ã¢â¹- EvanÃ¢â¹ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ALAC mailing list > > > <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > > > At-Large Online: > <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: > > > <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committe>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committe > > e+(ALAC) > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: ><http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > >-- >Fatima Cambronero >Abogada-Argentina > >Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 >Twitter: @facambronero >Skype: fatima.cambronero

4 5

24H CONSENSUS CALL: appointment of members of the "Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions"
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 5, 2014

Oct. 5, 2014

Dear ALAC members, please be so kind to find the email below that I have sent to the members of the At-Large Ad-hoc WG on the Transition of US Government Stewardship of the IANA Functions. The message is self explanatory. Due to time pressures, this is a 24H consensus call to the ALAC, on whether there are any objections from ALAC members concerning the candidates below to be appointed by the ALAC as full members of the "Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions". With no objections, the candidate names would be deemed as being satisfactory to be transmitted to the Staff member in charge of supporting the "Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions" as full member appointees from the ALAC, with a note that the candidate's name for the NARALO region is pending. As mentioned below, due to the nature of the appointment of persons, objections can be made in private to Staff and/or me. Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: 24H CONSENSUS CALL: appointment of members of the "Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions" Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 01:28:59 +0300 From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> To: iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> CC: ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Dear members of the At-Large Ad-hoc WG on the Transition of US Government Stewardship of the IANA Functions, As you know, the "Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions" is currently being formed. After a call for potential candidates was sent to the RALO Secretariats list, the following names have been proposed by the RALO leaderships: * AFRALO: Seun Ojedeji * APRALO: Fouad Bajwa * EURALO: Olivier Crépin-Leblond * LACRALO: Fatima Cambronero The NARALO decision is still pending. With a first meeting of the CWG due to take place on 6th October, we barely have the time to agree with this selection for those members to be able to take part in the first conference call. As a result, for the time being we'll leave the NARALO slot as "pending". Due to time pressures, this is a 24H consensus cal running in parallel with the WG consensus call, which will also be send simultaneously to the ALAC, on whether there are any objections from the IANA Issues WG concerning the above candidates to be appointed by the ALAC as full members of the above working group. With no objections, the candidate names will be deemed as being satisfactory to passed on the to the ALAC for their consensus call. Again, time pressures will mean that the ALAC will receive a similar 24H consensus call in parallel with the present consensus call. Thus any objection will stop the process. Due to the nature of the appointment of persons, objections can be made in private to Staff and/or me. Warm regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond Interim Chair of At-Large IANA Issues WG

10 10

Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes
by Carlton Samuels Oct. 5, 2014

Oct. 5, 2014

I hate to disagree with my friend Tijani on this. In this case we are extending the mantle of the ALAC's standing in the ICANN community to an At-Large Structure. Current institutional arrangements and the configuration is that at least ten (10) ALAC members are supposed to be reflecting their sense of ALS positions to ALAC and thence, to the Board and community. If an ALAC member cannot vote and publicly justify one's vote then that member is unworthy of being an ALAC member. Mark me down as unanimous on that. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Tijani BENJEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn> wrote: > Dear Alan, > > > > Unfortunately, I didn’t attend the last ALAC call. I do appreciate that > this > issue was brought to the table. > > > > I do think that the ALS certification and decertification votes should be > conducted as confidential votes to avoid any tension or harassment. Even > staff and the ALAC chair shouldn’t know how ALAC Members voted. We may ask > voters to give the rational of their vote, but anonymously. > > > > My fear is that when the ALAC members cast their votes knowing that there > will be someone (staff and ALAC Chair) who will see how they voted, they > will not vote according to their conscience, they will modulate their > choice > according the relationship they think staff members and ALAC Chair have > with > the concerned ALS. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > Tijani BEN JEMAA > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg > Envoyé : jeudi 2 octobre 2014 14:37 > À : ALAC > Objet : [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes > > > > On our last ALAC call, Olivier brought up the subject of whether ALS > > certification and decertification votes should use secret ballots > > (such as we used for personnel votes) or not, and it was decided to > > discuss the issue on the mailing list. > > > > The history is that most ALAC votes are open and it is disclosed who > > voted which way, with the exception of personnel votes and others > > that the ALAC explicitly decides should be secret. We have made such > > a decision of rare occasions. The only example I can recall is when > > we voted on whether to file objections to the .health new TLDs and we > > did so to avoid any harassment of ALAC members who voted for such > objections. > > > > A couple of years ago, a change was made to certification and > > decertification votes to change them from open to closed because of > > one or more objections filed by applicants. There is also a concern > > that a rejected application could lead to harassment of those who > > rejected it, and a concern that people might not vote honestly if the > > result was public (similar to the reason for secret ballots on > > personnel votes). > > > > I think that this concern should be considered. > > > > However, under our rules and the ICANN Bylaws, ALS certification and > > decertification decisions may be appealed to the Board. As such, we > > should be in a position to explain why a decision was made. > > > > Accordingly I offer the following proposal. > > > > ALS certification votes shall be conducted in such a way that there > > will be no public disclosure of how ALAC Members voted. However, the > > details of how ALAC Members voted will be available to ICANN At-Large > > staff and the ALAC Chair to allow them to conduct private interviews > > with voters to be able to put together a rationale for why any > > particular decision was made. > > > > Comments? > > > > Alan > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA > C) > > > > --- > Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant > parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. > http://www.avast.com > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

5 4

Re: [ALAC] 24H CONSENSUS CALL: appointment of members of the
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net Oct. 4, 2014

Oct. 4, 2014

I am happy with the candidates Holly On Sat 04/10/14 8:38 AM , Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond ocl(a)gih.com sent: > Dear ALAC members, > > please be so kind to find the email below that I have sent to the > members of the At-Large Ad-hoc WG on the Transition of US Government > Stewardship of the IANA Functions. > > The message is self explanatory. > > Due to time pressures, this is a 24H consensus call to the ALAC, on > whether there are any objections from ALAC members concerning the > candidates below to be appointed by the ALAC as full members of the > "Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship > TransitionProposal on Naming Related Functions". > > With no objections, the candidate names would be deemed as being > satisfactory to be transmitted to the Staff member in charge of > supporting the "Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA > Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions" as > fullmember appointees from the ALAC, with a note that the candidate's name > for the NARALO region is pending. > > As mentioned below, due to the nature of the appointment of persons, > objections can be made in private to Staff and/or me. > > Kind regards, > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond > ALAC Chair > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: 24H CONSENSUS CALL: appointment of members of the "Cross > Community Working Group to Develop an IANA Stewardship Transition > Proposal on Naming Related Functions" > Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2014 01:28:59 +0300 > From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com&g > t;To: iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>CC: ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff > @atlarge.icann.org> > > > Dear members of the At-Large Ad-hoc WG on the Transition of US > Government Stewardship of the IANA Functions, > > As you know, the "Cross Community Working Group to Develop an IANA > Stewardship Transition Proposal on Naming Related Functions" is > currently being formed. > > After a call for potential candidates was sent to the RALO Secretariats > list, the following names have been proposed by the RALO leaderships: > > * AFRALO: Seun Ojedeji > * APRALO: Fouad Bajwa > * EURALO: Olivier Crépin-Leblond > * LACRALO: Fatima Cambronero > > > The NARALO decision is still pending. With a first meeting of the CWG > due to take place on 6th October, we barely have the time to agree with > this selection for those members to be able to take part in the first > conference call. > > As a result, for the time being we'll leave the NARALO slot as > "pending". > Due to time pressures, this is a 24H consensus cal running in parallel > with the WG consensus call, which will also be send simultaneously to > the ALAC, on whether there are any objections from the IANA Issues WG > concerning the above candidates to be appointed by the ALAC as full > members of the above working group. With no objections, the candidate > names will be deemed as being satisfactory to passed on the to the ALAC > for their consensus call. > > Again, time pressures will mean that the ALAC will receive a similar > 24Hconsensus call in parallel with the present consensus call. Thus any > objection will stop the process. > > Due to the nature of the appointment of persons, objections can be made > in private to Staff and/or me. > > Warm regards, > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond > Interim Chair of At-Large IANA Issues WG > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.orgALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+C > ommittee+(ALAC) >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 4, 2014

Oct. 4, 2014

Evan, my apologies, it is how I read your suggestion. You are saying that your suggestion for for 2 would be: 2. We have general agreement that for certification votes where there is definitive regional advice, we should have standard open votes. For cases where there is not definitive regional advice, how ALAC members vote should not be published. Is that correct. If so, I have no problem with that. Given the timing with some people leaving for LA in a few days, I suggest that we continue to solicit support or disagreement here and come to a resolution (hopefully quickly) in LA. Alan At 03/10/2014 11:24 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >I'm not sure that summary is accurate. > >Based on my proposal â-- with which you (Alan) >and many others agreed -- is that in the vast >majority of cases where the RALO advice is >clear, the ALAC certification vote remains open. >That is the opposite of what you have in point #2 above. > >Based on the emails to date, only Tijani has >expressed the view that all certification votes >should be closed. There is certainly NOT general >agreement on that, I oppose it myself. Indeed, >some (including myself and Raf) understand that >my proposal -- to close the votes *only* for >those ALS applications for which RALO advice is >conflicted -- is a difficult compromise, since >the preference is to be totally open. > >- Evan > >On 3 October 2014 10:56, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >>Tijani, I understand. As I previously said, if >>there is support for your position, we probably >>need to make sure it is acceptable in case there is a dispute. >> >>TO SUMMARIZE: >> >>1. We have general agreement that >>de-certification votes should be standard open votes. >> >>2. We have general agreement that how ALAC >>members vote on certification motions should not be published. >> >>3. We have some level of agreement that in the >>case of a dispute, staff and Chair can access >>the details of how people voted to allow a >>summary statement to be created on why the >>request for accreditation did not succeed. >>However, there is some disagreement with this.

7 8

Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes
by Carlton Samuels Oct. 4, 2014

Oct. 4, 2014

I think it is more important to demonstrably reject dysfunction and not connive at error. We must reject all attempts to personalize every action and demonstrate the most important rule for this kind of organisation; we exercise the rule of reason. For the ALAC, the process is sine die. The RALO goes on with time for good sense to prevail. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)planet.tn> wrote: > Good morning Alan, > > > > First of all, I changed my position regarding the decertification: I do > agree with Sala that for decertification, a 100% transparency is needed, so > I think now that the vote for decertification should be completely open. > > > > As for the certification, and as you know Alan, we faced problems with some > (yes very few) cases where the RALO was divided in 2 parts with 2 different > approaches, and 2 almost equal groups. To be with this group or the other > can destroy our relationship with part of the RALO and minimize the level > of > trust. I think we have to be careful. > > > > You spoke about trust in the staff and the ALAC Chair; it is not about > trust > at all. It’s more psychological and it may make some members change their > choice because they know it will be known by someone. This is the risk. As > for my case, I don’t mind if my vote is known and I will not change it in > any case, but it is not the case for everyone. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > Tijani BEN JEMAA > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg > Envoyé : jeudi 2 octobre 2014 23:09 > À : tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn; 'ALAC' > Objet : Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes > > > > Thanks Tijani, > > > > Your missing the last call is not important in > > respect to this discussion, since it quickly > > became obvious that it was a more complex > > decsision than we thought and that is why I raised it here. > > > > As Evan has said, this becomes relevant in only a > > very few certification votes, and even fewer of > > those might be contested - I can recall only a couple in my time on the > ALAC. > > > > If there is strong support for your position, > > then we will have to go to ICANN Legal Counsel > > and the Ombudsman to see whether they believe we > > could do such a vote and not be able to later > > understand why the decision was made. > > > > Ultimately, although we want to be diligent and > > make the right decision with respect to each ALS > > application, we can only go so far. > > > > If we cannot trust the staff and Chair to handle > > delicate issues, then we are already in big trouble. > > > > Alan > > > > > > At 02/10/2014 04:51 PM, Tijani BENJEMAA wrote: > > >Dear Alan, > > > > > >Unfortunately, I didn’t attend the last ALAC > > >call. I do appreciate that this issue was brought to the table. > > > > > >I do think that the ALS certification and > > >decertification votes should be conducted as > > >confidential votes to avoid any tension or > > >harassment. Even staff and the ALAC chair > > >shouldn’t know how ALAC Members voted. We may > > >ask voters to give the rational of their vote, but anonymously. > > > > > >My fear is that when the ALAC members cast their > > >votes knowing that there will be someone (staff > > >and ALAC Chair) who will see how they voted, > > >they will not vote according to their > > >conscience, they will modulate their choice > > >according the relationship they think staff > > >members and ALAC Chair have with the concerned ALS. > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > >Tijani BEN JEMAA > > >Executive Director > > >Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > > >Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > > >Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > > >Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >-----Message d'origine----- > > >De : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan > Greenberg > > >Envoyé : jeudi 2 octobre 2014 14:37 > > >À : ALAC > > >Objet : [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes > > > > > >On our last ALAC call, Olivier brought up the subject of whether ALS > > >certification and decertification votes should use secret ballots > > >(such as we used for personnel votes) or not, and it was decided to > > >discuss the issue on the mailing list. > > > > > >The history is that most ALAC votes are open and it is disclosed who > > >voted which way, with the exception of personnel votes and others > > >that the ALAC explicitly decides should be secret. We have made such > > >a decision of rare occasions. The only example I can recall is when > > >we voted on whether to file objections to the .health new TLDs and we > > >did so to avoid any harassment of ALAC members who voted for such > objections. > > > > > >A couple of years ago, a change was made to certification and > > >decertification votes to change them from open to closed because of > > >one or more objections filed by applicants. There is also a concern > > >that a rejected application could lead to harassment of those who > > >rejected it, and a concern that people might not vote honestly if the > > >result was public (similar to the reason for secret ballots on > > >personnel votes). > > > > > >I think that this concern should be considered. > > > > > >However, under our rules and the ICANN Bylaws, ALS certification and > > >decertification decisions may be appealed to the Board. As such, we > > >should be in a position to explain why a decision was made. > > > > > >Accordingly I offer the following proposal. > > > > > >ALS certification votes shall be conducted in such a way that there > > >will be no public disclosure of how ALAC Members voted. However, the > > >details of how ALAC Members voted will be available to ICANN At-Large > > >staff and the ALAC Chair to allow them to conduct private interviews > > >with voters to be able to put together a rationale for why any > > >particular decision was made. > > > > > >Comments? > > > > > >Alan > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >ALAC mailing list > > >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > >ALAC Working Wiki: > > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL > AC) > > > > > > > > > > > >---------- > > >Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus > > >ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection > > ><http://www.avast.com/>Antivirus avast! est active. > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA > C) > > > > --- > Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant > parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. > http://www.avast.com > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

1 0

ALS certification and decertification votes
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 4, 2014

Oct. 4, 2014

On our last ALAC call, Olivier brought up the subject of whether ALS certification and decertification votes should use secret ballots (such as we used for personnel votes) or not, and it was decided to discuss the issue on the mailing list. The history is that most ALAC votes are open and it is disclosed who voted which way, with the exception of personnel votes and others that the ALAC explicitly decides should be secret. We have made such a decision of rare occasions. The only example I can recall is when we voted on whether to file objections to the .health new TLDs and we did so to avoid any harassment of ALAC members who voted for such objections. A couple of years ago, a change was made to certification and decertification votes to change them from open to closed because of one or more objections filed by applicants. There is also a concern that a rejected application could lead to harassment of those who rejected it, and a concern that people might not vote honestly if the result was public (similar to the reason for secret ballots on personnel votes). I think that this concern should be considered. However, under our rules and the ICANN Bylaws, ALS certification and decertification decisions may be appealed to the Board. As such, we should be in a position to explain why a decision was made. Accordingly I offer the following proposal. ALS certification votes shall be conducted in such a way that there will be no public disclosure of how ALAC Members voted. However, the details of how ALAC Members voted will be available to ICANN At-Large staff and the ALAC Chair to allow them to conduct private interviews with voters to be able to put together a rationale for why any particular decision was made. Comments? Alan

8 8

Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net Oct. 3, 2014

Oct. 3, 2014

I would also be comfortable with either 1 or 3. For reasons others have set out well, I am not happy with option 2. Holly On Sat 04/10/14 4:29 AM , Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca sent: > I have to question how much refinement we should > be putting into something that so far, has > happened perhaps once every year or two or three > and to the best of my recollection has only been > challenged once in our history. > > Personally, I can readily accept 1 or 3. Which I > have a preference for I will keep to myself for the moment. > > I would prefer not to take 2, but could accept > it, but suspect it may make us unable to properly > fulfill our mandate and we would need to do some > additional investigation regarding the > interpretation of the Bylaws and how ombudsman issues are resolved. > > Alan > > At 03/10/2014 02:27 PM, Raf Fatani wrote: > >Indeed that is how I understand it. > > > >If we had a vote on these three items, I would > > >there needs to be a mechanism of 'checks and > balances' to this option.> > >This said, maybe we can find agreement in these > >'checks and balances' in order to find consensus > in this group.> > >Would this be a good starting point? if so, for > > > >mechanism that you would find > agreeable?> > >Kind Regards, > > > >Raf > > > > > >On 3 Oct 2014, at 19:05, Alan Greenberg <alan > .greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote:> > > > This is getting to be > interesting.> > > > > So far, I think that we have general > > agreement on how to handle all votes except a > > certification where the RALO is undecided. Here > we have multiple positions.> > > > > 1. Secret but staff/chair can access > details> > 2. Everything secret. > > > 3. Everything published. > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > At 03/10/2014 01:42 PM, Fatima Cambronero > wrote:> > > > >> Dear All, > > >> > > >> I agree with Sandra on this. > > >> > > >> I expressed in our last teleconference > a > similar point: our roles are as representatives > from our RALOs.> >> > > >> I think whenever possible, our votes in > > certification and decertification processes > > should be open and transparent and be available > to be consulted for our RALOs.> >> > > >> I believe it is easy to deal with happy > > people, when we voted in the same sense that > > our RALO expressed. But the main skill of a > > leader is dealing with less happy people when > > we voted on contrary sense of their > "mandate". > If we can explain why our votes were in > > different sense, we don't be worried because > > some RALO members don't smile us > anymore.> >> > > >> Just my 2 cents. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Best Regards, > > >> > > >> Fatima > > >> > > >> 2014-10-03 14:39 GMT-03:00 Alberto Soto > > <<aso > to(a)ibero-americano.org>asoto(a)ibero-americano.org>:> >> Again, I agree Alan. Not all measures > of a > democratic government, are ideal. > > >> Seek balance, governance and better > functionality.> >> Regards > > >> > > >> Alberto > > >> > > >> -----Mensaje original----- > > >> De: > > <alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac-bounces@atlarge-li > sts.icann.org > [alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Alan > Greenberg> >> Enviado el: viernes, 03 de octubre de > 2014 02:30 p.m.> >> Para: sandra hoferichter; Evan > Leibovitch> >> CC: ALAC > > >> Asunto: Re: [ALAC] ALS certification > and decertification votes> >> > > >> Most votes would be open. Our rules > allow > someone to explain their vote if they wish > > (particularly a no or abstain). For those few > > votes where there is no recommendation from the > > RALO, the vote would be secret, BUT we would be > > able to privately request a rationale for the > vote.> >> > > >> You are correct (in my view) that in an > > ideal world, the ALAC members, who have an > > obligation to support the ALAC, At-Large and > > ICANN, could vote against the wishes of some in > > their RALO, and could justify this. The same is > > true for personnel votes, and some parts of > ICANN have those open as well.> >> > > >> But I am not sure ALAC members are paid > > enough to subject them to possible harassment if > we can easily remedy it.> >> > > >> Alan > > >> > > >> At 03/10/2014 01:17 PM, sandra > hoferichter wrote:> >> >Hi all, my thoughts on one point. I > understand or self as being> >> >privileged in terms that most of us > are elected by their RALOs to> >> >represent their interest. They put > trust in us. Sometimes we have to> >> >take decisions such as > certification and decertification. I see the> >> >point of personal relationships > within a RALO - which might be> >> >challenged depending on he vote. > BUT as we have a certain> >> >responsibility here I think all of > us should take that burden to> >> >justify a decision personally > within the region and globally as a> >> >group. This would be in my POV the > most democratic approach.> >> > > > >> >Best Sandra > > >> > > > >> >(Note: This message was send from > my iPhone - I do apologise for any> >> >misspelling.) > > >> > > > >> > > Am 03.10.2014 um 17:52 > schrieb Evan > Leibovitch <<evan(a)telly.org > >evan(a)telly.org>:> >> > > > > >> > > On 3 October 2014 11:42, Alan > Greenberg > <<alan > .greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote:> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > >> You are saying that your > suggestion for for 2 would be:> >> > >> > > >> > >> 2. We have general > agreement that for certification votes where> >> > >> there is definitive > regional advice, we should have standard open> >> > >> votes. For cases where > there is not definitive regional> >> > advice, how ALAC members vote > should> >> > >> not be > published.> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > _______________________________________________> >> > > ALAC mailing list > > >> > > < > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> >> > > > > >> > > At-Large Online: > > <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:> >> > > > <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+C > ommitte>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Co > mmitte> >> > e+(ALAC) > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________> >> ALAC mailing list > > >> < > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> >> > > >> At-Large Online: > > <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > > <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+C > ommittee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Adv > isory+Committee+(ALAC)> >> > > >> > _______________________________________________> >> ALAC mailing list > > >> < > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> >> > > >> At-Large Online: > > <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org> >> ALAC Working Wiki: > > <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+C > ommittee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Adv > isory+Committee+(ALAC)> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Fatima Cambronero > > >> Abogada-Argentina > > >> > > >> Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 > > >> Twitter: @facambronero > > >> Skype: fatima.cambronero > > > > _______________________________________________> > ALAC mailing list > > > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org> > ALAC Working Wiki: > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+C > ommittee+(ALAC)> > >_______________________________________________>ALAC mailing list > > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac> > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org>ALAC Working Wiki: > >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+C > ommittee+(ALAC) > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.orgALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+C > ommittee+(ALAC) > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 3, 2014

Oct. 3, 2014

Tijani, I understand. As I previously said, if there is support for your position, we probably need to make sure it is acceptable in case there is a dispute. TO SUMMARIZE: 1. We have general agreement that de-certification votes should be standard open votes. 2. We have general agreement that how ALAC members vote on certification motions should not be published. 3. We have some level of agreement that in the case of a dispute, staff and Chair can access the details of how people voted to allow a summary statement to be created on why the request for accreditation did not succeed. However, there is some disagreement with this. Alan At 03/10/2014 05:44 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: >Good morning Alan, > >First of all, I changed my position regarding >the decertification: I do agree with Sala that >for decertification, a 100% transparency is >needed, so I think now that the vote for >decertification should be completely open. > >As for the certification, and as you know Alan, >we faced problems with some (yes very few) cases >where the RALO was divided in 2 parts with 2 >different approaches, and 2 almost equal groups. >To be with this group or the other can destroy >our relationship with part of the RALO and >minimize the level of trust. I think we have to be careful. > >You spoke about trust in the staff and the ALAC >Chair; it is not about trust at all. Its more >psychological and it may make some members >change their choice because they know it will be >known by someone. This is the risk. As for my >case, I dont mind if my vote is known and I >will not change it in any case, but it is not the case for everyone. > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Tijani BEN JEMAA >Executive Director >Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) >Phone: + 216 41 649 605 >Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 >Fax: + 216 70 853 376 >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg >Envoyé : jeudi 2 octobre 2014 23:09 >À : tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn; 'ALAC' >Objet : Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes > >Thanks Tijani, > >Your missing the last call is not important in >respect to this discussion, since it quickly >became obvious that it was a more complex >decsision than we thought and that is why I raised it here. > >As Evan has said, this becomes relevant in only a >very few certification votes, and even fewer of >those might be contested - I can recall only a couple in my time on the ALAC. > >If there is strong support for your position, >then we will have to go to ICANN Legal Counsel >and the Ombudsman to see whether they believe we >could do such a vote and not be able to later >understand why the decision was made. > >Ultimately, although we want to be diligent and >make the right decision with respect to each ALS >application, we can only go so far. > >If we cannot trust the staff and Chair to handle >delicate issues, then we are already in big trouble. > >Alan > > >At 02/10/2014 04:51 PM, Tijani BENJEMAA wrote: > >Dear Alan, > > > >Unfortunately, I didnt attend the last ALAC > >call. I do appreciate that this issue was brought to the table. > > > >I do think that the ALS certification and > >decertification votes should be conducted as > >confidential votes to avoid any tension or > >harassment. Even staff and the ALAC chair > >shouldnt know how ALAC Members voted. We may > >ask voters to give the rational of their vote, but anonymously. > > > >My fear is that when the ALAC members cast their > >votes knowing that there will be someone (staff > >and ALAC Chair) who will see how they voted, > >they will not vote according to their > >conscience, they will modulate their choice > >according the relationship they think staff > >members and ALAC Chair have with the concerned ALS. > > > >----------------------------------------------- > --------------------------------- > >Tijani BEN JEMAA > >Executive Director > >Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > >Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > >Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > >Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > >----------------------------------------------- > --------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > >-----Message d'origine----- > >De : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg > >Envoyé : jeudi 2 octobre 2014 14:37 > >À : ALAC > >Objet : [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes > > > >On our last ALAC call, Olivier brought up the subject of whether ALS > >certification and decertification votes should use secret ballots > >(such as we used for personnel votes) or not, and it was decided to > >discuss the issue on the mailing list. > > > >The history is that most ALAC votes are open and it is disclosed who > >voted which way, with the exception of personnel votes and others > >that the ALAC explicitly decides should be secret. We have made such > >a decision of rare occasions. The only example I can recall is when > >we voted on whether to file objections to the .health new TLDs and we > >did so to avoid any harassment of ALAC members > who voted for such objections. > > > >A couple of years ago, a change was made to certification and > >decertification votes to change them from open to closed because of > >one or more objections filed by applicants. There is also a concern > >that a rejected application could lead to harassment of those who > >rejected it, and a concern that people might not vote honestly if the > >result was public (similar to the reason for secret ballots on > >personnel votes). > > > >I think that this concern should be considered. > > > >However, under our rules and the ICANN Bylaws, ALS certification and > >decertification decisions may be appealed to the Board. As such, we > >should be in a position to explain why a decision was made. > > > >Accordingly I offer the following proposal. > > > >ALS certification votes shall be conducted in such a way that there > >will be no public disclosure of how ALAC Members voted. However, the > >details of how ALAC Members voted will be available to ICANN At-Large > >staff and the ALAC Chair to allow them to conduct private interviews > >with voters to be able to put together a rationale for why any > >particular decision was made. > > > >Comments? > > > >Alan > > > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >ALAC Working Wiki: > >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At- > Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) > > > > > > > >---------- > >Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus > >ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection > ><http://www.avast.com/>Antivirus avast! est active. >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > >---------- >Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus >ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection ><http://www.avast.com/>Antivirus avast! est active.

3 2

Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net Oct. 3, 2014

Oct. 3, 2014

On Sat 04/10/14 1:22 AM , Evan Leibovitch evan(a)telly.org sent: > On 3 October 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg <alan > .greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > You are saying that your suggestion for for 2 > would be:> > > 2. We have general agreement that for > certification votes where there is> definitive regional advice, we should have > standard open votes. For cases> where there is not definitive regional advice, > how ALAC members vote should> not be published. > > > > Yes, that is a clearer expression of my internt. Thanks. > > - Evan > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.orgALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+C > ommittee+(ALAC) >

1 0