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 <seun.ojedeji@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" <alan.greenberg@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" < tijani.benjemaa@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, it’s 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: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Le 10 juin 2016 à 22:22, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > a écrit :

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 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...)

_______________________________________________ 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...)

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.

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 <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> To: Kan Kaili <mailto:kankaili@gmail.com> Cc: Seun Ojedeji <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> ; Alan Greenberg <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> ; ALAC Working List <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> 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 <mailto: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.

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+(ALA...)

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: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía To: Holly Raiche Cc: ALAC Working List ; 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, León El 16/06/2016, a las 5:18 p.m., Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> escribió: 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: a.. 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 b.. 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+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ 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...) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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...)

Hi, Seun, I fully agree with you that this random process only takes place "in case" and most likely may not take into effect. However, I am talking about the principle. I have not seen any single nation including such kind of randomness in its election process. Thus, as selecting our Board Member is a serious matter, whe should we do it that way ? Here I would like to reiterate the following from my previous email: "... 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. Is this what we want?" As to contestants may be in the ALT making such a decision, I would say, so be it. I do not see the reason of being "unfair" for a person to vote for him/herself. Thus, the whole ALT votes to make the selection in such a case. The only reason I can see for randomness is that, nobody will be blamed for a result (ANY result, no matter good or bad) but not being liked by some people. This reason itself showes that the decision-making parties are not taking their responsibilities seriously enough. Of course, in order to decrease the pressure of ALT members, the ALT selection process can be of secret ballots if so desired. If the current situation is serious enough, I would agree to see my ALT selection suggestion amended this way. If the ALT making this decision is un-practical in our current situation, in my other email I have also provided a few other alternatives for your consideration. However, as proven by the Arrow's theorem, democracy (and fairness) has its limits, while what must be done must be done. BTW, now I tend to believe I under-estimated this so-called "long and painful" process before jumping into it. Maybe next time I should be more careful. :) Thank you again. Best regards, Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: Seun Ojedeji To: Kaili Kan Cc: Alan Greenberg ; Holly Raiche ; ALAC Working List ; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives 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" <kankaili@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: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía To: Holly Raiche Cc: ALAC Working List ; 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, León El 16/06/2016, a las 5:18 p.m., Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> escribió: 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: a.. 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 b.. 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+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ 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...) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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...) _______________________________________________ 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...)

Hi, Holly, I agree with all your points, especially that human consideration should be prefered over randomness. However, regarding Board Members excuse themselves when voting, I suppose those issues are only when related to personal interests, especially finacial interests etc., but not on policy issues and elections. For example, a Board Member would be fully eligible to vote "yes" for a policy he/she proposed and advocated for, as well as voting for him/herself during elections because it is his/her true belief that him/herself is the best person to do the job. I also saw last year that Alan was not shy to cite our procedures to serve as ALAC's chair for another term, which also showed to me similar principles. Am I right or wrong on this? Thank you again. Best regards, Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: Holly Raiche To: Seun Ojedeji Cc: Kaili Kan ; Alan Greenberg ; ALAC Working List ; Le�n Felipe S�nchez Amb�a Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 6:46 PM Subject: Re: [ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives Hi Seun I really worry about your statement that randomness is preferable to the ALT’s 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, I’d 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 <seun.ojedeji@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" <kankaili@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: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía To: Holly Raiche Cc: ALAC Working List ; 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, León El 16/06/2016, a las 5:18 p.m., Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> escribió: 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: a.. 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 b.. 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+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ 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...) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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...) _______________________________________________ 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...)

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: Seun Ojedeji To: Holly Raiche Cc: Kaili Kan ; Alan Greenberg ; ALAC Working List ; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía 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 <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote: Hi Seun I really worry about your statement that randomness is preferable to the ALT’s 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, I’d 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 <seun.ojedeji@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" <kankaili@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: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía To: Holly Raiche Cc: ALAC Working List ; 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, León El 16/06/2016, a las 5:18 p.m., Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> escribió: 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: a.. 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 b.. 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+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ 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...) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 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...) _______________________________________________ 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...) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!

Hi, Suen, I would again say it is indeed ALT vs. randomness. Regarding ALT member having already voted, yes, they have already voted. What I propose is to let them vote again on behalf of the the electorates. In any republic, congressmen/women all have voted locally or during initial rounds. However, this does not mean that their voting again in congress makes it unfair. Regarding fairness vs. effectiveness, I would go for effectiveness. Indeed, who ever lost may have a reason to suspect that the winning person has closer ties to ALT members. However, this is a question regarding the integrety of ALT members. As far as I see, this is not an issue with our current ALT, and I believe, when future ALT members are elected, personal integrety will certainly be taken into account by all the people electing them. Also, as time passes, I have every reason to believe that ALT members who selected the winning person would have plenty opportunities to demonstrate their integrety, also to clear out any such suspicion. Futhermore, another reason that I would go for effectiveness is that we at ALAC are on a mission to represent the world's billions of end-users. We are not just individuals on ourselves when personal rights may take a priority. Thus, although there might be cases when some individuals feel it is "unfair" to them, as our top priority is always to do the job best, just like in the military, fairness is only secondary compared to the expectation laid on us by those billions. Regarding "tossing the coin" by ALT, no, that does not imply randomization. The precondition for "tossing a coin" is believing ALT's selection is worse than random selection. I am not sure about what you believe in, but I certainly have much better faith in ALT. Also, regarding the current discussion about randomness vs. ALT selection, I also believe there is only an extremely small chance for that case to occur this time. However, as we are setting the rules now, it is not going to be for this time only. It may last for a long time, for many people including myself are tired of this "long and painful process". This is exactly why I insist on setting the rules right. If we cannot set the rules right, let's go for alternatives and leave the procedures to later. However, we definitely do not want to set the wrong rules in a hurry and suffer long-term consequences in the future. Glad to see two of the most junior members debating on long-term and important issues of ALAC like this, which shows that our ALAC is indeed a democracy. :) Best regards, Kaili ----- Original Message ----- From: Seun Ojedeji To: Kaili Kan Cc: ALAC Working List Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 8:02 PM Subject: Re: [ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives 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" <kankaili@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: Seun Ojedeji To: Holly Raiche Cc: Kaili Kan ; Alan Greenberg ; ALAC Working List ; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía 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 <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote: Hi Seun I really worry about your statement that randomness is preferable to the ALT’s 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, I’d 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 <seun.ojedeji@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" <kankaili@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: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía To: Holly Raiche Cc: ALAC Working List ; 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, León El 16/06/2016, a las 5:18 p.m., Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> escribió: 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: a.. 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 b.. 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+(ALA...) _______________________________________________ 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...) ------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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...) _______________________________________________ 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...) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!

Hello Kan, Personally i don't think this should be difficult to decide upon, it seem there is already significant traction for option 2, if we are in doubt and when consensus by observing the discussion does not seem to work then we can fall back on voting. I don't think this is a complicated matter at all, we all want what is best and fair in the long run. I have given you my opinion on why delegating to ALT would not be an idea thing to do in this situation, did you find that convincing at all? if not why? As to extension of current board member, i don't think that is an option[1] neither is the option to assign our responsibility to nomcom. [2] In summary, we seem to both agree that it is those contestant that fall in a tie that should be further looked into, where we have disagreement is on whether it should be the role of a selected few of the electorate who makes such decision (i.e the ALT) or it should be left to just casting lot (selection by randomization). I go for the later based on my previous explanation but you prefer the former which is still fine but not my preference. Overall if we cannot agree then we can just do a formal consensus call by voting and i will be fine with any of the options that finally gets the highest traction. Regards 1. unless we want to unanimously appoint the current board member for a new term because we are unable to decide upon a minor selection process. 2. Nomcom role is not to appoint SO/AC representative to the board and it will even speak a lot about us in terms of how organized and together we are. On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com> wrote:

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 <h.raiche@internode.on.net> *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc:* Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> ; Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com> ; ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *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 <tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> *To:* Kan Kaili <kankaili@gmail.com> *Cc:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> ; Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> ; ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *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+(ALA...)

_______________________________________________ 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...)

-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!

Plus 1 to Tijani. Best, Wolf Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:33:

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 <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn> To: Kan Kaili <mailto:kankaili@gmail.com> Cc: Seun Ojedeji <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> ; Alan Greenberg <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> ; ALAC Working List <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> 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 <mailto: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.

EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig Swiss IGF http://swiss-igf.ch EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig

Kaili, the selection of the electors was a long an painful process. Perhaps it needs to be refined, but this is not the time to do it. Regardless (andwithout commenting on the merits of your particular suggestion), one would also have to cover the case where a member of the ALT were a candidate (or perhaps both tied candidates were). Alan At 16/06/2016 07:00 AM, Kan Kaili wrote:

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.

Best regards, Kaili

----- Original Message ----- From: <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>Alan Greenberg To: <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>Seun Ojedeji ; <mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn>Tijani BEN JEMAA Cc: <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC Working List Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 1:26 AM Subject: Re: [ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives

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@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, itâ€â™s 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 à 22:22, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca > a écrit : 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@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+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

---------- _______________________________________________ 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...)