Hi, Alan and all,
 
In my understanding, the Board Member selection procedure needs to be done before the Helsinki meeting, and there is a certain time-urgency.  (Please correct me if I am wrong.)
 
Thus, as the democratic process deciding this procedure may go on forever, I suggest the following alternetives in case we cannot reach an agreement on the procedures on time:
 
1.  Extend the term of our current Board Member for a certain period, maybe for one or two years, at least until a new Member emerges from the procedure later agreed upon.  I believe this is justified because Rinalia has done an outstanding job at the Board representing ALAC during her term.  Thus, it should be most natural to extend her term for a certain period in such a case, and should be acceptable to everybody, at least the mass majority.  (At least I do not hear anybody shouting to replace her immediately for poor performance.)
 
2.  I don't think every detail of the rules always need to be fully set before hand, as long as they can be amended or changed later.  For example, Magna Carta is far from a full scale constitution, and even the US Constitution was amended for many many times.  Thus, maybe we can decide on ALAC's Board Member by simply a consensus call among all people eligible to vote on this matter without a formal vote.  If we take this approach, I would suggest Rinalia to defend her past work and layout plans for the next term as the incumbent.  Meanwhile we would see if there is any challanger for this position and how he/she "opens fire" on Rinalia.  If necessary, a debate can be held before the consensus call.
 
3.  In case we cannot make a decision ourselves after certain effort, we submit the final condidates to NomCom to decide for us.  Of course, this may not look so good for ALAC, but we must get things done if they must be done, and must not leave all the end-users disappointed without representation to the Board.
 
Meanwhile, as in my previous email, I still believe delegating the ALT to decide on behalf is the best in case necessary.  Above alternatives are only as backups in case.
 
Again, being the most junior ALAC member, all the above is to express my thoughts for your consideration.
 
Best regards,
Kaili
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Holly Raiche
To: Alan Greenberg
Cc: Tijani BEN JEMAA ; Kan Kaili ; ALAC Working List
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: [ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives

I have to agree with Alan (and Kaili) here.

I don’t 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.  I”m 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 <alan.greenberg@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,

I’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 can’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 doesn’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: +216 98 330 114
          +216 52 385 114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Le 16 juin 2016 à 15:46, Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com> a écrit :

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: Tijani BEN JEMAA
To: Kan Kaili
Cc: Seun Ojedeji ; Alan Greenberg ; 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: +216 98 330 114
          +216 52 385 114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Le 16 juin 2016 à 12:00, Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com> a écrit :

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
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+(ALAC)