Sorry, I said I could accept option 2 while I mean option 1. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn] Envoyé : vendredi 3 octobre 2014 23:36 À : 'Evan Leibovitch'; 'Alan Greenberg' Cc : 'ALAC' Objet : RE: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes Interesting discussion ! I think that we all prefer the transparency as a principle. But we need to identify the advantages and the disadvantages of the 3 options. For the decertification, I was convinced by Sala’s argument and find that the impact of the decertification (removing an ALS from the RALO, ALAC and At-Large) justify or perhaps impose an open process. For the certification, and in case of the concerned RALO was divided in 2 groups, any open vote will result in a destruction of the relationship between part of the RALO and the ALAC members that I consider a major disadvantage, while a confidential vote would make the ALAC members express their opinion without causing any tension. I do appreciate the position of Alan with his flexibility. I can accept the option 2 even if I find that some ALAC members may make a courteously vote. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Evan Leibovitch Envoyé : vendredi 3 octobre 2014 20:28 À : Alan Greenberg Cc : ALAC Objet : Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes On 3 October 2014 14:59, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
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.
Agreed, though I would go further and say I find #2 (completely secret) to be unacceptable. Sorry, Tijani, but you need to make a more compelling case of why complete vote secrecy -- that does not even trust the discretion of the ALAC chair -- is demanded. It is my view that we must have openness as the default action, and only compromise it (ie choice #1) in rare and exceptional circumstances. - Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@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...) --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com