Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes
Evan, my apologies, it is how I read your suggestion. You are saying that your suggestion for for 2 would be: 2. We have general agreement that for certification votes where there is definitive regional advice, we should have standard open votes. For cases where there is not definitive regional advice, how ALAC members vote should not be published. Is that correct. If so, I have no problem with that. Given the timing with some people leaving for LA in a few days, I suggest that we continue to solicit support or disagreement here and come to a resolution (hopefully quickly) in LA. Alan At 03/10/2014 11:24 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
I'm not sure that summary is accurate.
Based on my proposal â-- with which you (Alan) and many others agreed -- is that in the vast majority of cases where the RALO advice is clear, the ALAC certification vote remains open. That is the opposite of what you have in point #2 above.
Based on the emails to date, only Tijani has expressed the view that all certification votes should be closed. There is certainly NOT general agreement on that, I oppose it myself. Indeed, some (including myself and Raf) understand that my proposal -- to close the votes *only* for those ALS applications for which RALO advice is conflicted -- is a difficult compromise, since the preference is to be totally open.
- Evan
On 3 October 2014 10:56, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Tijani, I understand. As I previously said, if there is support for your position, we probably need to make sure it is acceptable in case there is a dispute.
TO SUMMARIZE:
1. We have general agreement that de-certification votes should be standard open votes.
2. We have general agreement that how ALAC members vote on certification motions should not be published.
3. We have some level of agreement that in the case of a dispute, staff and Chair can access the details of how people voted to allow a summary statement to be created on why the request for accreditation did not succeed. However, there is some disagreement with this.
On 3 October 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
You are saying that your suggestion for for 2 would be:
2. We have general agreement that for certification votes where there is definitive regional advice, we should have standard open votes. For cases where there is not definitive regional advice, how ALAC members vote should not be published.
Yes, that is a clearer expression of my internt. Thanks. - Evan
Hi all, my thoughts on one point. I understand or self as being privileged in terms that most of us are elected by their RALOs to represent their interest. They put trust in us. Sometimes we have to take decisions such as certification and decertification. I see the point of personal relationships within a RALO - which might be challenged depending on he vote. BUT as we have a certain responsibility here I think all of us should take that burden to justify a decision personally within the region and globally as a group. This would be in my POV the most democratic approach. Best Sandra (Note: This message was send from my iPhone - I do apologise for any misspelling.)
Am 03.10.2014 um 17:52 schrieb Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>:
On 3 October 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
You are saying that your suggestion for for 2 would be:
2. We have general agreement that for certification votes where there is definitive regional advice, we should have standard open votes. For cases where there is not definitive regional advice, how ALAC members vote should not be published.
Yes, that is a clearer expression of my internt. Thanks.
- Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Most votes would be open. Our rules allow someone to explain their vote if they wish (particularly a no or abstain). For those few votes where there is no recommendation from the RALO, the vote would be secret, BUT we would be able to privately request a rationale for the vote. You are correct (in my view) that in an ideal world, the ALAC members, who have an obligation to support the ALAC, At-Large and ICANN, could vote against the wishes of some in their RALO, and could justify this. The same is true for personnel votes, and some parts of ICANN have those open as well. But I am not sure ALAC members are paid enough to subject them to possible harassment if we can easily remedy it. Alan At 03/10/2014 01:17 PM, sandra hoferichter wrote:
Hi all, my thoughts on one point. I understand or self as being privileged in terms that most of us are elected by their RALOs to represent their interest. They put trust in us. Sometimes we have to take decisions such as certification and decertification. I see the point of personal relationships within a RALO - which might be challenged depending on he vote. BUT as we have a certain responsibility here I think all of us should take that burden to justify a decision personally within the region and globally as a group. This would be in my POV the most democratic approach.
Best Sandra
(Note: This message was send from my iPhone - I do apologise for any misspelling.)
Am 03.10.2014 um 17:52 schrieb Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>:
On 3 October 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
You are saying that your suggestion for for 2 would be:
2. We have general agreement that for certification votes where there is definitive regional advice, we should have standard open votes. For cases where there is not definitive regional advice, how ALAC members vote should not be published.
âYes, that is a clearer expression of my internt. Thanks.â
â- Evanâ _______________________________________________ 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...)
Again, I agree Alan. Not all measures of a democratic government, are ideal. Seek balance, governance and better functionality. Regards Alberto -----Mensaje original----- De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Alan Greenberg Enviado el: viernes, 03 de octubre de 2014 02:30 p.m. Para: sandra hoferichter; Evan Leibovitch CC: ALAC Asunto: Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes Most votes would be open. Our rules allow someone to explain their vote if they wish (particularly a no or abstain). For those few votes where there is no recommendation from the RALO, the vote would be secret, BUT we would be able to privately request a rationale for the vote. You are correct (in my view) that in an ideal world, the ALAC members, who have an obligation to support the ALAC, At-Large and ICANN, could vote against the wishes of some in their RALO, and could justify this. The same is true for personnel votes, and some parts of ICANN have those open as well. But I am not sure ALAC members are paid enough to subject them to possible harassment if we can easily remedy it. Alan At 03/10/2014 01:17 PM, sandra hoferichter wrote:
Hi all, my thoughts on one point. I understand or self as being privileged in terms that most of us are elected by their RALOs to represent their interest. They put trust in us. Sometimes we have to take decisions such as certification and decertification. I see the point of personal relationships within a RALO - which might be challenged depending on he vote. BUT as we have a certain responsibility here I think all of us should take that burden to justify a decision personally within the region and globally as a group. This would be in my POV the most democratic approach.
Best Sandra
(Note: This message was send from my iPhone - I do apologise for any misspelling.)
Am 03.10.2014 um 17:52 schrieb Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>:
On 3 October 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
You are saying that your suggestion for for 2 would be:
2. We have general agreement that for certification votes where there is definitive regional advice, we should have standard open votes. For cases where there is not definitive regional advice, how ALAC members vote should not be published.
​Yes, that is a clearer expression of my internt. Thanks.​
​- Evan​ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committe e+(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...)
Dear All, I agree with Sandra on this. I expressed in our last teleconference a similar point: our roles are as representatives from our RALOs. I think whenever possible, our votes in certification and decertification processes should be open and transparent and be available to be consulted for our RALOs. I believe it is easy to deal with happy people, when we voted in the same sense that our RALO expressed. But the main skill of a leader is dealing with less happy people when we voted on contrary sense of their "mandate". If we can explain why our votes were in different sense, we don't be worried because some RALO members don't smile us anymore. Just my 2 cents. Best Regards, Fatima 2014-10-03 14:39 GMT-03:00 Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org>:
Again, I agree Alan. Not all measures of a democratic government, are ideal. Seek balance, governance and better functionality. Regards
Alberto
-----Mensaje original----- De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Alan Greenberg Enviado el: viernes, 03 de octubre de 2014 02:30 p.m. Para: sandra hoferichter; Evan Leibovitch CC: ALAC Asunto: Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes
Most votes would be open. Our rules allow someone to explain their vote if they wish (particularly a no or abstain). For those few votes where there is no recommendation from the RALO, the vote would be secret, BUT we would be able to privately request a rationale for the vote.
You are correct (in my view) that in an ideal world, the ALAC members, who have an obligation to support the ALAC, At-Large and ICANN, could vote against the wishes of some in their RALO, and could justify this. The same is true for personnel votes, and some parts of ICANN have those open as well.
But I am not sure ALAC members are paid enough to subject them to possible harassment if we can easily remedy it.
Alan
At 03/10/2014 01:17 PM, sandra hoferichter wrote:
Hi all, my thoughts on one point. I understand or self as being privileged in terms that most of us are elected by their RALOs to represent their interest. They put trust in us. Sometimes we have to take decisions such as certification and decertification. I see the point of personal relationships within a RALO - which might be challenged depending on he vote. BUT as we have a certain responsibility here I think all of us should take that burden to justify a decision personally within the region and globally as a group. This would be in my POV the most democratic approach.
Best Sandra
(Note: This message was send from my iPhone - I do apologise for any misspelling.)
Am 03.10.2014 um 17:52 schrieb Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>:
On 3 October 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
You are saying that your suggestion for for 2 would be:
2. We have general agreement that for certification votes where there is definitive regional advice, we should have standard open votes. For cases where there is not definitive regional advice, how ALAC members vote should not be published.
​Yes, that is a clearer expression of my internt. Thanks.​
​- Evan​ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committe e+(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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
-- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero
That's true, Fatima :) Those of us on the ALAC make our own decisions, and as leaders we must be prepared to stick up for how we vote. I liked the original idea proposed by Evan and Alan, but the further discussions are encouraging us all to be more open and accountable. Maureen -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Fatima Cambronero Sent: Friday, 3 October 2014 7:42 a.m. To: Alberto Soto Cc: ALAC; Alan Greenberg Subject: Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes Dear All, I agree with Sandra on this. I expressed in our last teleconference a similar point: our roles are as representatives from our RALOs. I think whenever possible, our votes in certification and decertification processes should be open and transparent and be available to be consulted for our RALOs. I believe it is easy to deal with happy people, when we voted in the same sense that our RALO expressed. But the main skill of a leader is dealing with less happy people when we voted on contrary sense of their "mandate". If we can explain why our votes were in different sense, we don't be worried because some RALO members don't smile us anymore. Just my 2 cents. Best Regards, Fatima 2014-10-03 14:39 GMT-03:00 Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org>:
Again, I agree Alan. Not all measures of a democratic government, are ideal. Seek balance, governance and better functionality. Regards
Alberto
-----Mensaje original----- De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Alan Greenberg Enviado el: viernes, 03 de octubre de 2014 02:30 p.m. Para: sandra hoferichter; Evan Leibovitch CC: ALAC Asunto: Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes
Most votes would be open. Our rules allow someone to explain their vote if they wish (particularly a no or abstain). For those few votes where there is no recommendation from the RALO, the vote would be secret, BUT we would be able to privately request a rationale for the vote.
You are correct (in my view) that in an ideal world, the ALAC members, who have an obligation to support the ALAC, At-Large and ICANN, could vote against the wishes of some in their RALO, and could justify this. The same is true for personnel votes, and some parts of ICANN have those open as well.
But I am not sure ALAC members are paid enough to subject them to possible harassment if we can easily remedy it.
Alan
At 03/10/2014 01:17 PM, sandra hoferichter wrote:
Hi all, my thoughts on one point. I understand or self as being privileged in terms that most of us are elected by their RALOs to represent their interest. They put trust in us. Sometimes we have to take decisions such as certification and decertification. I see the point of personal relationships within a RALO - which might be challenged depending on he vote. BUT as we have a certain responsibility here I think all of us should take that burden to justify a decision personally within the region and globally as a group. This would be in my POV the most democratic approach.
Best Sandra
(Note: This message was send from my iPhone - I do apologise for any misspelling.)
Am 03.10.2014 um 17:52 schrieb Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>:
On 3 October 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
You are saying that your suggestion for for 2 would be:
2. We have general agreement that for certification votes where there is definitive regional advice, we should have standard open votes. For cases where there is not definitive regional advice, how ALAC members vote should not be published.
​Yes, that is a clearer expression of my internt. Thanks.​
​- Evan​ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Commit te e+(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+Committe e+(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+Committe e+(ALAC)
-- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero _______________________________________________ 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...)
Ok. One example. If there in a RALO, a group with organizations members in different countries; at the time of review only consider the group's ideology; does not take into account the conditions of a candidate who is running for NOMCOM; or does not care if a future ALS compliant or not to certify the requirements to certificate; cares only then built, will act according to the directives of that group. In this RALO was no consensus… How ALAC vote? Regards Alberto De: Fatima Cambronero [mailto:fatimacambronero@gmail.com] Enviado el: viernes, 03 de octubre de 2014 02:42 p.m. Para: Alberto Soto CC: Alan Greenberg; sandra hoferichter; Evan Leibovitch; ALAC Asunto: Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes Dear All, I agree with Sandra on this. I expressed in our last teleconference a similar point: our roles are as representatives from our RALOs. I think whenever possible, our votes in certification and decertification processes should be open and transparent and be available to be consulted for our RALOs. I believe it is easy to deal with happy people, when we voted in the same sense that our RALO expressed. But the main skill of a leader is dealing with less happy people when we voted on contrary sense of their "mandate". If we can explain why our votes were in different sense, we don't be worried because some RALO members don't smile us anymore. Just my 2 cents. Best Regards, Fatima 2014-10-03 14:39 GMT-03:00 Alberto Soto <asoto@ibero-americano.org <mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org> >: Again, I agree Alan. Not all measures of a democratic government, are ideal. Seek balance, governance and better functionality. Regards Alberto -----Mensaje original----- De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> ] En nombre de Alan Greenberg Enviado el: viernes, 03 de octubre de 2014 02:30 p.m. Para: sandra hoferichter; Evan Leibovitch CC: ALAC Asunto: Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes Most votes would be open. Our rules allow someone to explain their vote if they wish (particularly a no or abstain). For those few votes where there is no recommendation from the RALO, the vote would be secret, BUT we would be able to privately request a rationale for the vote. You are correct (in my view) that in an ideal world, the ALAC members, who have an obligation to support the ALAC, At-Large and ICANN, could vote against the wishes of some in their RALO, and could justify this. The same is true for personnel votes, and some parts of ICANN have those open as well. But I am not sure ALAC members are paid enough to subject them to possible harassment if we can easily remedy it. Alan At 03/10/2014 01:17 PM, sandra hoferichter wrote:
Hi all, my thoughts on one point. I understand or self as being privileged in terms that most of us are elected by their RALOs to represent their interest. They put trust in us. Sometimes we have to take decisions such as certification and decertification. I see the point of personal relationships within a RALO - which might be challenged depending on he vote. BUT as we have a certain responsibility here I think all of us should take that burden to justify a decision personally within the region and globally as a group. This would be in my POV the most democratic approach.
Best Sandra
(Note: This message was send from my iPhone - I do apologise for any misspelling.)
Am 03.10.2014 um 17:52 schrieb Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org <mailto:evan@telly.org> >:
On 3 October 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > wrote:
You are saying that your suggestion for for 2 would be:
2. We have general agreement that for certification votes where there is definitive regional advice, we should have standard open votes. For cases where there is not definitive regional advice, how ALAC members vote should not be published.
​Yes, that is a clearer expression of my internt. Thanks.​
​- Evan​ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto: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+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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...) -- Fatima Cambronero Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero
++1 to Sandra's. I should have read thru the entire thread before I responded. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:17 PM, sandra hoferichter <info@hoferichter.eu> wrote:
Hi all, my thoughts on one point. I understand or self as being privileged in terms that most of us are elected by their RALOs to represent their interest. They put trust in us. Sometimes we have to take decisions such as certification and decertification. I see the point of personal relationships within a RALO - which might be challenged depending on he vote. BUT as we have a certain responsibility here I think all of us should take that burden to justify a decision personally within the region and globally as a group. This would be in my POV the most democratic approach.
Best Sandra
(Note: This message was send from my iPhone - I do apologise for any misspelling.)
Am 03.10.2014 um 17:52 schrieb Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>:
On 3 October 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
You are saying that your suggestion for for 2 would be:
2. We have general agreement that for certification votes where there is definitive regional advice, we should have standard open votes. For cases where there is not definitive regional advice, how ALAC members vote should not be published.
Yes, that is a clearer expression of my internt. Thanks.
- Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
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...)
participants (7)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Alberto Soto -
Carlton Samuels -
Evan Leibovitch -
Fatima Cambronero -
Maureen Hilyard -
sandra hoferichter