October 2014 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

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

Oct. 3, 2014

Just when I thought this was sorted! I agree with Evan's description of what seemed to be the majority view - and originally thought that was what we all agreed upon. My suggestion now is to have ALAC members respond ONLY if Evan's summary is not correct. That way, silence (and hopefully less emails in everyone's in box) will mean that the general consensus reached is as Evan describes. Holly On Sat 04/10/14 12:54 AM , Evan Leibovitch evan(a)telly.org sent: > 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 motions should not be published.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.> > > > I'm not sure that summary is accurate. > > Based on my proposal -- with which you (Alan) and many others agreed -- > isthat in the vast majority of cases where the RALO advice is clear, the > ALACcertification vote remains open. *That is the opposite of what you have > inpoint #2 above.* > > Based on the emails to date, only Tijani has expressed the view that > allcertification votes should be closed. There is certainly NOT general > agreement on that, I oppose it myself. Indeed, some (including myself > andRaf) understand that my proposal -- to close the votes *only* for those > ALSapplications for which RALO advice is conflicted -- is a difficult > compromise, since the preference is to be totally open. > > - 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

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

Oct. 3, 2014

Dear Tijani, I understand, but for the same reasons, I'm agreeing with Alan. LACRALO is still, unfortunately, an example of such a vote. I hope to change it. Regards Alberto -----Mensaje original----- De: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Tijani BEN JEMAA Enviado el: viernes, 03 de octubre de 2014 06:45 a.m. Para: 'Alan Greenberg'; tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn; 'ALAC' Asunto: Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes 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 >+(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+(ALA C)

1 0

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

Oct. 3, 2014

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+(AL… > > > >---------- >Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus >ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection ><http://www.avast.com/>Antivirus avast! est active.

2 1

Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net Oct. 2, 2014

Oct. 2, 2014

First thanks to Alan for a very clear statement of rules and a very sensible suggestion. And thanks for the discussion. And I am also fine with the approach highlighted by Evan HOlly On Thu 02/10/14 11:56 PM , Evan Leibovitch evan(a)telly.org sent: > On 2 October 2014 09:37, Alan Greenberg <alan > .greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > 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 > > ? > > > > > I like this. Fine with me. > > > > - 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

Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes
by Evan Leibovitch Oct. 2, 2014

Oct. 2, 2014

Thanks for the support of those who liked my approach. For those still concerned by its potential harm to transparency, I completely understand the concern. In response, I can recall fewer than five instances, ever, in which the RALO advice has been undecided (out of more than 180 ALSs approved to date). I foresee the vast majority of future ALS applications continuing to be accompanied by unambiguous RALO advice, for or against -- in which case, under my proposal, the ALAC certification vote will remain open. I believe that Alan's proposal of a vote closed to all but chair and staff, in those VERY RARE cases where RALO advice is conflicted, is a reasonable but necessary balance between accountability and conflict avoidance, On 2 October 2014 16:51, 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… > -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes
by Maureen Hilyard Oct. 2, 2014

Oct. 2, 2014

Evan and Alan have my agreement as well Maureen Maureen Hilyard, Cook Islands - Samsung Mobile Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Sounds completely reasonable to me. > >Consider my proposal changed. > >Alan > >At 02/10/2014 12:44 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>On 2 October 2014 11:08, Salanieta T. >>Tamanikaiwaimaro >><<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com>salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> >>wrote: >>Secret ballots on decertification are not transparent. >>There should be utmost transparency involved in processes such as >>decertification. >> >> >>âOn reflection, I have the following change of tack. >> >>I agree on open votes for Decertification >>because it is a seriousâ act of >>disenfranchisement. By the time a vote comes up >>there must be compelling reason to do this, it must not be taken lightly. >> >>However, on certification, for better or worse >>some recent instances have become incredibly >>politicised, with even the RALO itself unable to >>properly advise the ALAC on a way to proceed. In >>these instances, I would prefer a closed vote >>that enables ALAC members to vote on the merits >>of the action rather than risk acrimony amongst >>people they will have to work with. As Alan has >>said, this is now close to the realm of a >>personal election, and IMO this is a specific >>instance in which privacy trumps transparency. >> >>So, on reflection, I suggest this: >> * Decertification votes are always open. >> * Certification votes are open UNLESS the >> RALO does not provide definitive advice. Then Alan's protocol applies. >>- Evan >> >> >> >> >> >>On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >>wrote: >> >> > 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 >> > <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+>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ >> > Advisory+Committee+(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… >> >> >> >> >>-- >>Evan Leibovitch >>Toronto Canada >>Em: evan at telly dot org >>Sk: evanleibovitch >>Tw: el56 >_______________________________________________ >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

Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 2, 2014

Oct. 2, 2014

Sounds completely reasonable to me. Consider my proposal changed. Alan At 02/10/2014 12:44 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 2 October 2014 11:08, Salanieta T. >Tamanikaiwaimaro ><<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com>salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> >wrote: >Secret ballots on decertification are not transparent. >There should be utmost transparency involved in processes such as >decertification. > > >âOn reflection, I have the following change of tack. > >I agree on open votes for Decertification >because it is a seriousâ act of >disenfranchisement. By the time a vote comes up >there must be compelling reason to do this, it must not be taken lightly. > >However, on certification, for better or worse >some recent instances have become incredibly >politicised, with even the RALO itself unable to >properly advise the ALAC on a way to proceed. In >these instances, I would prefer a closed vote >that enables ALAC members to vote on the merits >of the action rather than risk acrimony amongst >people they will have to work with. As Alan has >said, this is now close to the realm of a >personal election, and IMO this is a specific >instance in which privacy trumps transparency. > >So, on reflection, I suggest this: > * Decertification votes are always open. > * Certification votes are open UNLESS the > RALO does not provide definitive advice. Then Alan's protocol applies. >- Evan > > > > > >On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >wrote: > > > 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 > > <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+>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ > > Advisory+Committee+(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… > > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto Canada >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56

2 1