June 2016 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Milestone: The Number of At-Large Structures Reach 200!
by ICANN At-Large Staff June 24, 2016

June 24, 2016

Dear All, Today, on 23 June 2016, we celebrate an exciting milestone in the history of the At-Large Community – the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) has accredited the 200th organization as an At-Large Structure (ALS). From the Arctic to the Cook Islands, ALSes form the basis of the At-Large community, which represents the best interests of Internet users in ICANN’s multistakeholder model. Across the world’s five geographic regions, 92 countries and territories now have ALSes, with 42 ALSes in Africa, 44 in Asia Pacific, 37 in Europe, 50 in Latin America and the Caribbean Islands, and 27 in North America. Since September 2003 when the first ALS, the Internet Society Italy Chapter, was accredited, the At-Large Community has seen a steady increase of ALSes. In the past five years, the At-Large Community has gained approximately 14 ALSes each year. An ALS is a wholly independent organization from ICANN. Whether it is an Internet-related consumer rights groups or an academic organization, ALSes share the passion in furthering the development of Information and Communication Technologies and contributing to policy activities that influence the technical coordination of the Domain Name Systems. In fact, about 33% ALSes are Internet Society Chapters. The ALS accreditation process recognizes that these groups meet ICANN’s criteria for involving individual Internet users at the local or issue level, as well as for promoting individuals’ understanding of and participation in ICANN. Within ICANN, they actively contribute to policy advice development activities and play a key role in ICANN’s regional outreach strategies and civil society engagement. They work to ensure that the Internet continues to serve the global public interest. To learn more about ALSes, please visit: https://atlarge.icann.org/alses. [cid:image001.png@01D1CD62.4614C370] Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, Terri Agnew and Yeşim Nazlar ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

4 3

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] [lac-discuss-es] Milestone: The Number of At-Large Structures Reach 200!
by Barrack Otieno June 24, 2016

June 24, 2016

Dear all, This is great progress. Thank you Best Regards On 6/24/16, Capda Capda <capdasiege(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Congratulations to everyone who worked hard in the outreach necessary to > reach this milestone! Lively encouragement to the entire ALS community for > this performance. > > Best, > > 2016-06-23 22:26 GMT+02:00 Antonio Medina Gómez <amedinagomez(a)gmail.com>: > >> Una gran noticia!!! >> Ya son 200 las organizaciones que constituyen la comunidad At-Large. >> La Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet, ACUI, registra con >> satisfacción esta buena nueva. >> Cordial saludo >> El 23/06/2016 14:17, "ICANN At-Large Staff" <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >> escribió: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> >>> >>> Today, on 23 June 2016, we celebrate an exciting milestone in the >>> history >>> of the At-Large Community – the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) has >>> accredited the 200th organization as an At-Large Structure (ALS). >>> >>> >>> >>> From the Arctic to the Cook Islands, ALSes form the basis of the >>> At-Large >>> community, which represents the best interests of Internet users in >>> ICANN’s >>> multistakeholder model. Across the world’s five geographic regions, 92 >>> countries and territories now have ALSes, with 42 ALSes in Africa, 44 in >>> Asia Pacific, 37 in Europe, 50 in Latin America and the Caribbean >>> Islands, >>> and 27 in North America. >>> >>> >>> >>> Since September 2003 when the first ALS, the Internet Society Italy >>> Chapter, was accredited, the At-Large Community has seen a steady >>> increase >>> of ALSes. In the past five years, the At-Large Community has gained >>> approximately 14 ALSes each year. >>> >>> >>> >>> An ALS is a wholly independent organization from ICANN. Whether it is an >>> Internet-related consumer rights groups or an academic organization, >>> ALSes >>> share the passion in furthering the development of Information and >>> Communication Technologies and contributing to policy activities that >>> influence the technical coordination of the Domain Name Systems. In >>> fact, >>> about 33% ALSes are Internet Society Chapters. >>> >>> >>> >>> The ALS accreditation process recognizes that these groups meet ICANN’s >>> criteria for involving individual Internet users at the local or issue >>> level, as well as for promoting individuals’ understanding of and >>> participation in ICANN. Within ICANN, they actively contribute to policy >>> advice development activities and play a key role in ICANN’s regional >>> outreach strategies and civil society engagement. They work to ensure >>> that >>> the Internet continues to serve the global public interest. >>> >>> >>> >>> To learn more about ALSes, please visit: >>> https://atlarge.icann.org/alses. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie >>> Peregrine, Terri Agnew and Yeşim Nazlar >>> >>> ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community >>> >>> E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org >>> >>> Website: atlarge.icann.org >>> >>> Facebook: facebook.com/icann <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> >>> atlarge <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> >>> >>> Twitter: @ <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge >>> <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lac-discuss-es mailing list >>> lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es >>> >>> http://www.lacralo.org >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> At-Large mailing list >> At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >> > > > > -- > > > > > > > *Michel TCHONANG LINZECoordinateur GénéralCoordonnateur Régional Afrique > Centrale Réseau Panafricain Société Civile (ACSIS)ÉVÈNEMENTS SUR LES TIC : > - ICANN56 du 27 au 30 juin 2016 à Helsinki - Finlande- UNCTAD 14 du 17 au > 22 juillet 2016 à Nairobi - Kenya - Symposium TIC AFRIQUE du 02 au 05 Août > 2016 à Yaoundé - CAMEROUN- 3ème réunion de la Commission d'études 1&2 de > l'UIT-D > <http://www.itu.int/net4/ITU-D/CDS/sg/blkmeetings.asp?lg=2&sp=2014&blk=14384> > du 19- 23 et du 26- 30 septembre 2016, Suisse- Genève- Réunion groupe des > experts TIC (EGH et EGTI) du 04 au 07/10/2016 à Genève -Suisse - 11ème FGI > du 06 au 09 Décembre 2016 à Guadalajara au Mexique CAPDA (Consortium > d'Appui aux Actions pour la Promotion et le Développement de l'Afrique)BP : > 15 151 DOUALA - CAMEROUN Tél. : (237) 67775-39-63 / 24212-9493 Email : > capdasiege(a)gmail.com <capdasiege(a)gmail.com> * > -- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254733206359 Skype: barrack.otieno PGP ID: 0x2611D86A

1 0

CORRECTED: Helsinki At-Large Leadership Agenda
by Alan Greenberg June 22, 2016

June 22, 2016

Thanks to Heidi for pointing out I actually attached a very obsolete version instead of the correct one! The correct one is dated 22 June 2016 on the title line. Alan At 22/06/2016 03:29 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Please find attached the current version of the Agenda for the >At-Large Leadership (ALL - formerly ALAC & Regional Leadership) >Working Sessions at Helsinki. > >The full schedule including other ALL meetings can be found at >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ICANN+56+-+Helsinki+Meeting+-+J…. > >There have been MANY changes during the last days, so those with >other commitments should check carefully in case new conflicts have arisen. > >This is hopefully the last revision prior to arrival in Helsinki. > >Alan > >Content-Type: application/pdf; name="ALAC Helsinki Agenda.pdf" >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ALAC Helsinki Agenda.pdf" >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:oH2By61Egcjrf+pL8akx+7waWC/U9Ho0pl8HnuuRC4+Lck45wShu+jGKoOaNGjOGnUs60Zj7WPEMpQP0UtAo7Jmczgn9aRXiRrvIaUerK04NaSDKFg7484Lm0GhbUwRcwPkvTAK4DEi7hofs9hTK9wQibhJ7wwnfWp+0PkLaiO3m1lnpz+MwtVkbM9PRARsQ > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:oH2By61Egcjrf+pL8akx+7waWC/U9Ho0pl8HnuuRC4+Lck45wShu+jGKoOaNGjOGnUs60Zj7WPEMpQP0UtAo7Jmczgn9aRXiRrvIaUerK04NaSDKFg7484Lm0GhbUwRcwPkvTAK4DEi7hofs9hTK9wQibhJ7wwnfWp+0PkLaiO3m1lnpz+MwtVkbM9PRARsQ > >_______________________________________________ >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

Helsinki At-Large Leadership Agenda
by Alan Greenberg June 22, 2016

June 22, 2016

Please find attached the current version of the Agenda for the At-Large Leadership (ALL - formerly ALAC & Regional Leadership) Working Sessions at Helsinki. The full schedule including other ALL meetings can be found at https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ICANN+56+-+Helsinki+Meeting+-+J…. There have been MANY changes during the last days, so those with other commitments should check carefully in case new conflicts have arisen. This is hopefully the last revision prior to arrival in Helsinki. Alan

1 0

UDRP Litmus Test?
by Carlton Samuels June 22, 2016

June 22, 2016

.....um, well, they claim broad definition as 'community'! So if nobody saw this coming...well, mud's your name! Quick, think of a PIC for this one........delicious..... 😉 http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160615_the_dotbible_litmus_test_for_domain_… -CAS ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Helsinki-june 24
by Judith Hellerstein June 21, 2016

June 21, 2016

Hi all, If anyone is coming in early to Helsinki i just heard that Friday June 24 is a national holiday so places may be closed. I have not checked about museums. I know it is putting a damper on my plans for touring that day. Looking forward to seeing everyone soon. Cheers!! Judith Sent from my iPad Judith(a)jhellerstein.com Skype ID: judithhellerstein

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives
by Alan Greenberg June 17, 2016

June 17, 2016

As I said, I think that option 2 will lead to strategic voting where the supporters of the leading candidate may vote for the WEAKEST candidate instead of for their preferred choice (among the two), and I believe that in the final race, we should have the two strongest candidates against each other. You are correct that option 1 brings the leading contestant in, but option 2 allows the electors who support this candidate to vote (since we could not exclude them!) But clearly others have a different views. Makes life interesting! Alan At 15/06/2016 12:22 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >I would agree with Tijani's option as well, for >similar reason; I think it's just fair not to >bring the leading contestant in the tie breaking >process between 2 other contestants. > >Regards > >Regards > >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos >On 15 Jun 2016 16:59, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" ><<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn> wrote: >Hi Alan, > >My inclination is to option 2. I find it more >logical and preserve the right of the candidate >with the best score. I think that the first vote >is done without side consideration, means that >each electorate member will vote for their >preferred candidate, and its result is the more >relevant with the electorate choice. So, itâs >fair to respect it and keep the candidate with >the best score and rerun the vote to break the tie between the tied candidates. > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Tijani BEN JEMAA >Executive Director >Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) >Phone: <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>+216 98 330 114 > <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114>+216 52 385 114 >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>Le 10 juin 2016 Ã 22:22, Alan Greenberg >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> a Ã©crit : >> >>In the Rules of Procedure revision that I sent >>a few days ago, there are several options to >>one of the voting stages in the selection of >>the At-Large Director. The RoP revision group >>did not reach unanimity on which option to pick >>(largely because of the deadline required to >>sent the revision to the ALAC to allow us to >>approve the revisions in Helsinki). >> >>The options have to do with the reduction of >>three candidates to two. In the optimal case, >>one of the three candidates will have fewer >>votes (or first preference votes) and will be >>dropped, resulting in two candidates being >>left. The difficulty arises if the two >>candidates tie for last place, but with the >>leading candidate not receiving an absolute >>majority of votes needed to be declared the final winner. >> >>Option 1: Re-run the entire three-way election, >>with the hope that some positions may have >>changed. This would be done just once. If the >>second vote results in a tie for the last >>position (even if it is not the same pair as >>the first time), one of those tied is >>eliminated based on a verifiable random >>selection. The down side of this method is that >>no one may alter their vote and we would have to use a random selection. >> >>Option 2: Have a run-off vote between the two >>tied candidates. If the results between the two >>is tied, a verifiable random selection would be >>used to eliminate one of them. The down side of >>this option is something called "strategic >>voting". Those electors who originally voted >>for the leading candidate (the one not in this >>runoff) may not vote for the person they >>prefer, but could vote for the one they >>perceive as the weakest opponent to their preferred candidate. >> >>Option 3: There will be no 2nd vote. One of the >>two tied candidates will be dropped based on a verifiable random selection. >> >>Option 4: Use the same STV voting as would be >>used in the first round (to narrow the slate >>down to three). The BigPulse STV system will >>always eliminate one candidate, but if it must >>resort to a random selection, it would be >>internal to the voting system and would not be >>verifiable (ie it would have to be trusted to >>have used a truly random selection. >> >>Since the ALAC will have to decide on a which >>option to use, it would be good to begin the >>discussion now and not wait for Helsinki. > > >_______________________________________________ >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…

9 26

URGENT: GAC Liaison
by Alan Greenberg June 17, 2016

June 17, 2016

As you know, during the meeting with the GAC in Marrakech, we proposed that the GAC and the ALAC exchange Liaisons. Although there were no details of exactly how to go about this, the idea was accepted by the GAC. The Chair of the GAC has now given his approval for the ALAC to proceed and identify the person who will serve as its Liaison. Although there is nothing formal in this regard, it is clear to me that whoever we propose must be acceptable to the GAC (or more particularly to GAC leadership). That process was followed with the GNSO Liaison to the GAC and I think it would be unreasonable to do otherwise here - this entire concept must depend on trust and good faith. In terms of qualifications, the person must be familiar with and have the confidence of the ALAC, and at the same time, understand governments and preferably the GAC. I believe that there are a number of people in our community who meet these requirements. Following consultation with the ALT, it appears that there are a few issues. a) It is clear that we do not have the time to initiate a formal call for nominations and the selection process that will follow it if the person is to be seated in Helsinki. b) This is a important step and we want transparency in the process. c) It would be very foolish if we did not take up the offer and appoint someone in time for the Helsinki meeting. Having a Liaison to the GAC is something that we have been wanting for a long time, and we have no control over how the GAC's position might change if we leave the position unfilled. d) On the long term, we will have to ensure that we have travel support for this new Liaison, but on the short term, we have the travel slots for the ccNSO and GNSO Liaisons which are not needed by the incumbents (Maureen is funded as an ALAC Member and Olivier as the EURALO Chair) and we have recently been given permission to use these slots as we wish. After consultation with the ALT, I would like to propose the following: 1. Once we have the ALAC Selection committee in place, and in ample time prior to the Annual General Meeting to be held in Hyderabad, we initiate a formal call for nominations; have the selection committee make its recommendation(s) to the ALAC; and appoint a Governmental Advisory Committee Liaison (subject to GAC approval) for the 2016-2017 year. 2. We delegate to the ALT the responsibility to appoint an interim Liaison to the GAC to start in Helsinki. I would like to initiate a consensus call on this, so please make any comments quickly, and be clear if you have concerns with the premises (a-d) or the proposals (1-2) and any alternative proposals. Alan

13 19

Re: [ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives
by Alan Greenberg June 17, 2016

June 17, 2016

I did choose to get a few hours sleep last night, and this thread is what I find!!!!!!!!! I am very short of time so cannot reply to all of the issue raised, but I will go back, because some of them are important. Just a few notes: 1. We preferably do have to come to closure on this in Helsinki, and I believe that we will. But if we don't, the world will not collapse. 2. There are a lot of issues at play here. "fairness" is one, and picking the "best" candidate is another. BOTH terms are subjective and people have different views on what they mean in a particular case. We will probably not all agree, but that is why we have 15 people on the ALAC and we are MULTI-stakeholder. 4. The volume of e-mail on this subject, and that of the GAC Liaison is impressive. Let's keep it up on OTHER topics as well. 3. I will get back later in my day to summarize where we are on all issues. Alan At 17/06/2016 08:02 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hello Kaili, > >It is not about the ALT vs randomisation. The >act of randomisation at that point is in >fairness to the contestants. We the electorate >know that either of them is fine, giving it over >to the ALT to choose (don't forget that ALT is >part of those who already voted) gives whoever >lost some reason to feel the winner has personal attachment to the ALT. > >Now I will still be fine if we indeed leave it >to the ALT to "toss the coin" as that would >still imply randomisation. What we should not be >doing at that point is having the ALT vote on >whom among the contestant is preferred. > >Regards > >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos >On 17 Jun 2016 12:35 p.m., "Kan Kaili" ><<mailto:kankaili@gmail.com>kankaili(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Hi, Suen, > >The issue is about comparing ALT's selection >capability vs. ranmdomness. Are you saying that >ALT's selection would be even worse than randomness? > >If that is the case, let's close our eyes and >let ALT to toss the coin. If that is not the >case, let's again close our eyes and let ALT make the decision as well. > >Best, >Kaili > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>Seun Ojedeji >To: <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>Holly Raiche >Cc: <mailto:kankaili@gmail.com>Kaili Kan ; ><mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>Alan Greenberg >; <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC >Working List ; <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>LeÃ³n Felipe SÃ¡nchez AmbÃa >Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 7:28 PM >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives > >Hello Holly, > >This is not about my level of trust for the ALT, >all the electorates are one way or the other put >in their positions by their regions and they are >equally trustworthy so i would have still said >the same thing if we delegated the role to ALAC or any other leadership. > >My point is that when/if we get to that bridge >where 2 or more already tied contestants returns >tied again, it implies both of them are >qualified to be elected and it should not >require any other individual(s) to deliberate on >which one of them to choose. The element of luck >should just play its magic at that point; we >should all just close our eyes and select one of >them which is the act of selection by randomization. > >Regards > >On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Holly Raiche ><<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> wrote: >Hi Seun > >I really worry about your statement that >randomness is preferable to the ALTâs role - >an unnecessary human perspective. > >ALT members are there because their regions have >put them there. But when it comes to the >crunch, they are not to be trusted! Really! > >I agree, that we are now talking about a very >unlikely scenario which, hopefully, will not >happen. That said, Iâd really prefer to think >that human consideration is preferable. (and >the normal practice in all Boards is that when a >Board member is too closely tied to a particular >outcome, they excuse themselves from >participating in making the relevant decision(s). > >Holly > > >On 17 Jun 2016, at 6:06 pm, Seun Ojedeji ><<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>Hello Kaili, >> >>I think we need to be clear here, going the >>random option is last resort and we all may >>actually never experience it. Three steps would >>have happened before randomly doing stuff: >> >>1. There would have been a contested position >>2. Votes would have been casted and resulted to a tie >>3. Another set of votes would have been casted >>among the contestants in 2 above. >> >>Once the above still result to a tie, I think >>it is just fair to go to randomisation that is >>verifiable. At that point there would be no >>human subjectivity as it is assumed that both >>tied contestants are qualified to be elected. >>Seeding that role to ALT brings in unnecessary >>human perspective/interference which won't be necessary at that point. >> >>Secondly, the ALT members are part of the >>electorates and there may even be instances >>where one of them is a contestant so delegating >>a section of the electorate the responsibility >>to determine the elected would not be a fair election process. >> >>Regards >>Sent from my LG G4 >>Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>On 17 Jun 2016 8:50 a.m., "Kan Kaili" >><<mailto:kankaili@gmail.com>kankaili(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>Hi, Leon, >> >>I agree with you that a random selection >>process is the best in accordance to "fairness". >> >>However, including this random factor into the >>selection process implies that we at ALAC >>rather trust randomness instead of our own >>elected ALT. This also implies that we regard >>personal fairness to be more important than the >>effectiveness of selecting our Board Member. Are those what we really want? >> >>As I understand, the Board Member is to >>represent ALAC, all the RALOs and ALSs, and in >>turn all the end-users to the Board. This is a >>serious position with enormous >>responsibility. I am not sure about what the >>end-users will think, but at least I will not >>feel comfortable having a randomly selected >>person to represent me. Furthermore, I am not >>sure if such a selectee would feel confident >>and be effective at that position either. >> >>Sorry to disagree with you on some points. >> >>Best regards, >>Kaili >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>LeÃ³n Felipe SÃ¡nchez AmbÃa >>To: <mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>Holly Raiche >>Cc: <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC >>Working List ; <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>Alan Greenberg >>Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 12:03 PM >>Subject: Re: [ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives >> >>Hello all, >> >>My sense is that option 2 is the best in >>fairness. While I understand the complexities >>of the rest of the options, I believe letting >>those candidates tied for last place compete >>amongst them is the most transparent way to >>address the challenge. In case they are tied >>again, then it would be justified to run the >>verifiable random disqualification process. >> >> >>Best regards, >> >> >>LeÃ³n >> >>>El 16/06/2016, a las 5:18 p.m., Holly Raiche >>><<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>h.raiche(a)internode.on.net> escribiÃ³: >>> >>>I have to agree with Alan (and Kaili) here. >>> >>>I donât think Kaili was suggesting that the >>>ALT take over anything. However, they may be >>>situations where, for timing reasons, the ALT >>>may be an appropriate mechanism to reach a decision. >>> >>>In the longer term, yes, we do need rules to >>>deal with situations that have been described, >>>and they must be as open and democratic and >>>fair as possible. But we must also reserve >>>the means of solving disputes in ways that do >>>not absorb too much time and energy of ALAC >>>members. Iâm sure there will be a solution, >>>hopefully without absorbing too much more time and effort of all of us >>> >>>Holly >>> >>> >>>On 17 Jun 2016, at 1:48 am, Alan Greenberg >>><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >>> >>>>To be clear, Tijani is correct that the ALT >>>>does not, de facto, have any rights to take >>>>decisions on behalf of the ALAC other than >>>>those rights of the Chair which the Chair might actively delegate to the ALT. >>>> >>>>However, the ALAC may, if it chooses, from >>>>time to time, delegate actions of the ALAC to >>>>the ALT. It happens relatively rarely, but >>>>does on occasion occur, usually for reasons of tight timing requirements. >>>> >>>>Alan >>>> >>>>At 16/06/2016 11:33 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: >>>>>Dear Kaili, >>>>> >>>>>IÃ¢â¬m sorry to disagree with you on everything: >>>>>The electorate is not constituted by the >>>>>ALAC members only, but also the RALO >>>>>leaders, so the ALAC canÃ¢â¬t delegate to ALT what is not its sole duty >>>>>even if we suppose that the ALT is elected >>>>>democratically by the ALAC members, this >>>>>doesnÃ¢t mean that the ALT can be >>>>>delegated to replace the ALAC. This is >>>>>exactly the argument given by the >>>>>authoritarian regimes arguing that since >>>>>they were elected by their people, they have >>>>>all the rights to do everything on their >>>>>behalf because they know better then the >>>>>people where is their interest. When you are >>>>>democratically elected, it is a mandate for >>>>>a limited time to do certain things; it is >>>>>not an open mandate to replace who elected >>>>>you outside the mandate you are elected for. >>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>Tijani BEN JEMAA >>>>>Executive Director >>>>>Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) >>>>>Phone: <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>+216 98 330 114 >>>>> +216 52 385 114 >>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Le 16 juin 2016 Ã 15:46, Kan Kaili >>>>>><<mailto:kankaili@gmail.com>kankaili(a)gmail.com> a ÃÂ©crit : >>>>>> >>>>>>Hi, Tijani, >>>>>> >>>>>>The awswer to your question: Basically, >>>>>>yes. That is, when ALAC faces a tie during >>>>>>the selection of its Board Director, or >>>>>>other positions generally in principle, the >>>>>>ALT will be delegated to make the selection on behalf of ALAC. >>>>>> >>>>>>The justification of this includes: >>>>>> >>>>>>- When there is a tie, all the tied >>>>>>candidates are equal representations of ALAC. >>>>>> >>>>>>- The ALT is democratically elected with >>>>>>full representation of all regions, >>>>>>cultures and, presumably, various interests. >>>>>> >>>>>>- ALT members are elected due to their >>>>>>experience and contribution to ICANN's >>>>>>mission, who should also be most capable to >>>>>>make the best selection among candidates. >>>>>> >>>>>>- As the ALT will be making the selection >>>>>>on behalf of all of ALAC, the process >>>>>>should be open to all ALAC voting members >>>>>>(not beyond). Thus, the selection made by >>>>>>each ALT member in this process will affect >>>>>>the support he/she receives during later >>>>>>elections of the ALT. This will in turn >>>>>>put a "lid" on any possible blackbox deals >>>>>>which will be the safeguard for our democratic principle. >>>>>> >>>>>>- We at ALAC are merely representatives of >>>>>>ALSes, or of the end-users in the world >>>>>>(maybe to a lesser extent regarding NomCom >>>>>>selectees like me). Thus, as they elected >>>>>>and delegated us to make selections on >>>>>>their behalf, it would also make sense to >>>>>>extend the same principle to the ALT in the >>>>>>case we cannot effectively make a selection. >>>>>> >>>>>>Furthermore, as Alan pointed out, it is >>>>>>possible, even likely, that tied-candidates >>>>>>be ALT members themselves, and even the >>>>>>chairperson him/herself. So be it. I >>>>>>don't think anywhere in the world's >>>>>>elections prohibit a person to vote for >>>>>>him/herself. Based on the above same >>>>>>arguments, he/she has received enough >>>>>>support for the position during the >>>>>>"general" election process, and is thus >>>>>>well deserved. Thus, he/she moving to the >>>>>>Board will vacate the ALT position, maybe >>>>>>even the chairperson position, for new >>>>>>blood. Also, as he/she gets the position >>>>>>as desired, I am sure that he/she will work >>>>>>even harder to contribute to ICANN's mission. >>>>>> >>>>>>Of course, before ALT selects on behalf of >>>>>>the whole ALAC, how many rounds of >>>>>>tie-breaking need to take place is up to >>>>>>debate. As I am not familiar to the >>>>>>current process, I am sure that, with so >>>>>>much wisdom in ALAC, a process to bridge >>>>>>the gap between the current process and the >>>>>>future one could be designed. However, >>>>>>again as Arrow's Nobel-prized Theorem has >>>>>>proven, especially as the Board Member >>>>>>selection process has been a "long and >>>>>>painful" one so far, a certain degree of >>>>>>"dictatorship" ("democracy-based >>>>>>dictatorship" to be exact) has to be there as a last resort. >>>>>> >>>>>>Thank you, and thank you all. >>>>>> >>>>>>Best regards, >>>>>>Kaili >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>>From: <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>Tijani BEN JEMAA >>>>>>>To: <mailto:kankaili@gmail.com>Kan Kaili >>>>>>>Cc: <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>Seun >>>>>>>Ojedeji ; >>>>>>><mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>Alan >>>>>>>Greenberg ; <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC Working List >>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 8:58 PM >>>>>>>Subject: Re: [ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Dear Kaili, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Do you propose that in the selection of >>>>>>>the Board Director selected by At-Large, >>>>>>>when we face a tie, we delegate the ALT to >>>>>>>decide which one should be dropped???? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>Tijani BEN JEMAA >>>>>>>Executive Director >>>>>>>Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) >>>>>>>Phone: <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>+216 98 330 114 >>>>>>> +216 52 385 114 >>>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Le 16 juin 2016 Ã 12:00, Kan Kaili >>>>>>>><<mailto:kankaili@gmail.com>kankaili(a)gmail.com> a ÃÂ©crit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I have followed this discussion with >>>>>>>>interest but also confussion. It seems >>>>>>>>to me that different options have different pros, cons and possible outcomes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>As a matter of fact, this reminds me of >>>>>>>>Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, basically >>>>>>>>saying that democracy can only go so far, >>>>>>>>and may not necessarily lead to a fair >>>>>>>>outcome acceptable by everybody. In that >>>>>>>>case, some degree of "dictatorship" is >>>>>>>>warranted. This is why republics are >>>>>>>>established, as well as why the >>>>>>>>presidential race between Bush and Gore >>>>>>>>was finally decided by the Supreme Court. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Thus, in our case, when a tie has >>>>>>>>appeared, I suggest to delegate ALT to >>>>>>>>decide who will represent ALAC at the >>>>>>>>position. After all, the ALT is elected >>>>>>>>by all of us thru a fully democratic >>>>>>>>process. Good enough. In the case that >>>>>>>>even the ALT cannot decide, the >>>>>>>>chairperson of ALAC will make the final decision. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I believe this process is highly >>>>>>>>executable, and is also fully democratic to its limit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Being the most junior member of ALAC, >>>>>>>>just expressing some of my thoughts for your consideration. >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>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… >> >> >> >>---------- >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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… > > > > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >Seun Ojedeji, >Federal University Oye-Ekiti >web: <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng >Mobile: +2348035233535 >alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> ><mailto:seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji(a)fuoye.edu.ng > >Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action! > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Content-Disposition: inline >X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: > >1;SN1PR0301MB2030;9:qORKk5lpZFhDw+GdtExuKzQlIQIYZ8lMkTqsU1vQVq0w8HaDmD9iWu7J9fKxBGPrxJMtA4sUJilH5KTx2RVl2FAA3ZVuaJFBVAaCj2oRhyuw/twnTrSE3URQq8S3hEpqiUX5kExtxSAG315pcJ1/9UWhysv4M8JbW9w0c0c08taly40M+72D1Km0zc47aZRf > >_______________________________________________ >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] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives
by Alan Greenberg June 16, 2016

June 16, 2016

Interesting possibility. Probably more likely if the leading candidate has "almost" won. Alan At 16/06/2016 02:42 AM, Maureen Hilyard wrote: >One of the arguments that was raised for Option >1 was that if there was a rerun of the voting >for all 3 candidates, then there was a >possibility that the front runner could increase >their vote and get 50% or more of the votes. >Thus not only winning that election, but winning >the actual seat and closing down any further >angst for candidates and voters.. :) > >On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Seun Ojedeji ><<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Hi Alan, > >I am not sure I agree that supporters of leading >contestant will go for the weakest among the 2 >tied contestants. I believe they will just go >for their second preferred candidate which >cannot be termed weakest (in politics, the >weakest is the one with the lowest votes ;-) ). > >The other point is that, if the ballot has >option of abstaining(or "none of the above"), >those who are so convinced may also use that as well. > >Overall I think the goal is to go for something >almost close to best and fair, I think option 2 satisfies that. > >Regards > >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos >On 16 Jun 2016 5:43 a.m., "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >As I said, I think that option 2 will lead to >strategic voting where the supporters of the >leading candidate may vote for the WEAKEST >candidate instead of for their preferred choice >(among the two), and I believe that in the final >race, we should have the two strongest candidates against each other. > >You are correct that option 1 brings the leading >contestant in, but option 2 allows the electors >who support this candidate to vote (since we could not exclude them!) > >But clearly others have a different views. Makes life interesting! > >Alan > >At 15/06/2016 12:22 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > >>I would agree with Tijani's option as well, for >>similar reason; I think it's just fair not to >>bring the leading contestant in the tie >>breaking process between 2 other contestants. >> >>Regards >> >>Regards >> >>Sent from my LG G4 >>Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>On 15 Jun 2016 16:59, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" >><<mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> tijani.benjemaa(a)topnet.tn> wrote: >>Hi Alan, >>My inclination is to option 2. I find it more >>logical and preserve the right of the candidate >>with the best score. I think that the first >>vote is done without side consideration, means >>that each electorate member will vote for their >>preferred candidate, and its result is the more >>relevant with the electorate choice. So, >>itÃ¢s fs fair to respect it and keep the >>candidate with the best score and rerun the >>vote to break the tie between the tied candidates. >>----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>Tijani BEN JEMAA >>Executive Director >>Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) >>Phone: <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>+216 98 330 114 >> <tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114>+216 52 385 114 >>----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >>>Le 10 juin 2016 Ã 22:22, Alan Greenberg >>><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > a ÃÂ©crit : >>>In the Rules of Procedure revision that I sent >>>a few days ago, there are several options to >>>one of the voting stages in the selection of >>>the At-Large Director. The RoP revision group >>>did not reach unanimity on which option to >>>pick (largely because of the deadline required >>>to sent the revision to the ALAC to allow us >>>to approve the revisions in Helsinki). >>> >>>The options have to do with the reduction of >>>three candidates to two. In the optimal case, >>>one of the three candidates will have fewer >>>votes (or first preference votes) and will be >>>dropped, resulting in two candidates being >>>left. The difficulty arises if the two >>>candidates tie for last place, but with the >>>leading candidate not receiving an absolute >>>majority of votes needed to be declared the final winner. >>>Option 1: Re-run the entire three-way >>>election, with the hope that some positions >>>may have changed. This would be done just >>>once. If the second vote results in a tie for >>>the last position (even if it is not the same >>>pair as the first time), one of those tied is >>>eliminated based on a verifiable random >>>selection. The down side of this method is >>>that no one may alter their vote and we would have to use a random selection. >>>Option 2: Have a run-off vote between the two >>>tied candidates. If the results between the >>>two is tied, a verifiable random selection >>>would be used to eliminate one of them. The >>>down side of this option is something called >>>"strategic voting". Those electors who >>>originally voted for the leading candidate >>>(the one not in this runoff) may not vote for >>>the person they prefer, but could vote for >>>the one they perceive as the weakest opponent to their preferred candidate. >>>Option 3: There will be no 2nd vote. One of >>>the two tied candidates will be dropped based on a verifiable random selection. >>>Option 4: Use the same STV voting as would be >>>used in the first round (to narrow the slate >>>down to three). The BigPulse STV system will >>>always eliminate one candidate, but if it must >>>resort to a random selection, it would be >>>internal to the voting system and would not be >>>verifiable (ie it would have to be trusted to >>>have used a truly random selection. >>>Since the ALAC will have to decide on a which >>>option to use, it would be good to begin the >>>discussion now and not wait for Helsinki. > > >_______________________________________________ >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… >

1 0