Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes
This is getting to be interesting. So far, I think that we have general agreement on how to handle all votes except a certification where the RALO is undecided. Here we have multiple positions. 1. Secret but staff/chair can access details 2. Everything secret. 3. Everything published. Alan At 03/10/2014 01:42 PM, Fatima Cambronero wrote:
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 <<mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org>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: <mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>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 <<mailto:evan@telly.org>evan@telly.org>:
On 3 October 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>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.
ââ¹Yes, that is a clearer expression of my iinternt. Thanks.ââ¹
ââ¹- Evanââ¹
_______________________________________________ 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:
e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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 <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)
-- Fatima Cambronero Abogada-Argentina
Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero
Indeed that is how I understand it. If we had a vote on these three items, I would *openly* vote for 'Option One’. HOWEVER, maybe there needs to be a mechanism of 'checks and balances' to this option. This said, maybe we can find agreement in these 'checks and balances' in order to find consensus in this group. Would this be a good starting point? if so, for those who would vote for 'Option Three’, what would be an acceptable ‘checks and balances’ mechanism that you would find agreeable? Kind Regards, Raf On 3 Oct 2014, at 19:05, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
This is getting to be interesting.
So far, I think that we have general agreement on how to handle all votes except a certification where the RALO is undecided. Here we have multiple positions.
1. Secret but staff/chair can access details 2. Everything secret. 3. Everything published.
Alan
At 03/10/2014 01:42 PM, Fatima Cambronero wrote:
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 <<mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org>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: <mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>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 <<mailto:evan@telly.org>evan@telly.org>:
On 3 October 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>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.
â€â€¹Yes, that is a clearer expression of my iinternt. Thanks.â€â€¹
â€â€¹- Evanâ€â€¹
_______________________________________________ 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+Committe>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committe e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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 <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)
-- 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...)
I have to question how much refinement we should be putting into something that so far, has happened perhaps once every year or two or three and to the best of my recollection has only been challenged once in our history. Personally, I can readily accept 1 or 3. Which I have a preference for I will keep to myself for the moment. I would prefer not to take 2, but could accept it, but suspect it may make us unable to properly fulfill our mandate and we would need to do some additional investigation regarding the interpretation of the Bylaws and how ombudsman issues are resolved. Alan At 03/10/2014 02:27 PM, Raf Fatani wrote:
Indeed that is how I understand it.
If we had a vote on these three items, I would *openly* vote for 'Option One. HOWEVER, maybe there needs to be a mechanism of 'checks and balances' to this option.
This said, maybe we can find agreement in these 'checks and balances' in order to find consensus in this group.
Would this be a good starting point? if so, for those who would vote for 'Option Three, what would be an acceptable checks and balances mechanism that you would find agreeable?
Kind Regards,
Raf
On 3 Oct 2014, at 19:05, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
This is getting to be interesting.
So far, I think that we have general agreement on how to handle all votes except a certification where the RALO is undecided. Here we have multiple positions.
1. Secret but staff/chair can access details 2. Everything secret. 3. Everything published.
Alan
At 03/10/2014 01:42 PM, Fatima Cambronero wrote:
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 <<mailto:asoto@ibero-americano.org>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: <mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>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 <<mailto:evan@telly.org>evan@telly.org>:
On 3 October 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>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.
ââ¹Yes, that is a clearer expression of my iinternt. Thanks.ââ¹
ââ¹- Evanââ¹
_______________________________________________ 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:
e+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ 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 <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)
-- 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
On 3 October 2014 14:59, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I have to question how much refinement we should be putting into something that so far, has happened perhaps once every year or two or three and to the best of my recollection has only been challenged once in our history.
Personally, I can readily accept 1 or 3. Which I have a preference for I will keep to myself for the moment.
I would prefer not to take 2, but could accept it, but suspect it may make us unable to properly fulfill our mandate and we would need to do some additional investigation regarding the interpretation of the Bylaws and how ombudsman issues are resolved.
Agreed, though I would go further and say I find #2 (completely secret) to be unacceptable. Sorry, Tijani, but you need to make a more compelling case of why complete vote secrecy -- that does not even trust the discretion of the ALAC chair -- is demanded. It is my view that we must have openness as the default action, and only compromise it (ie choice #1) in rare and exceptional circumstances. - Evan
Interesting discussion ! I think that we all prefer the transparency as a principle. But we need to identify the advantages and the disadvantages of the 3 options. For the decertification, I was convinced by Sala’s argument and find that the impact of the decertification (removing an ALS from the RALO, ALAC and At-Large) justify or perhaps impose an open process. For the certification, and in case of the concerned RALO was divided in 2 groups, any open vote will result in a destruction of the relationship between part of the RALO and the ALAC members that I consider a major disadvantage, while a confidential vote would make the ALAC members express their opinion without causing any tension. I do appreciate the position of Alan with his flexibility. I can accept the option 2 even if I find that some ALAC members may make a courteously vote. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Message d'origine----- De : alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Evan Leibovitch Envoyé : vendredi 3 octobre 2014 20:28 À : Alan Greenberg Cc : ALAC Objet : Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes On 3 October 2014 14:59, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I have to question how much refinement we should be putting into something
that so far, has happened perhaps once every year or two or three and to
the best of my recollection has only been challenged once in our history.
Personally, I can readily accept 1 or 3. Which I have a preference for I
will keep to myself for the moment.
I would prefer not to take 2, but could accept it, but suspect it may make
us unable to properly fulfill our mandate and we would need to do some
additional investigation regarding the interpretation of the Bylaws and how
ombudsman issues are resolved.
Agreed, though I would go further and say I find #2 (completely secret) to be unacceptable. Sorry, Tijani, but you need to make a more compelling case of why complete vote secrecy -- that does not even trust the discretion of the ALAC chair -- is demanded. It is my view that we must have openness as the default action, and only compromise it (ie choice #1) in rare and exceptional circumstances. - Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com
Sorry, I said I could accept option 2 while I mean option 1. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- De : Tijani BEN JEMAA [mailto:tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn] Envoyé : vendredi 3 octobre 2014 23:36 À : 'Evan Leibovitch'; 'Alan Greenberg' Cc : 'ALAC' Objet : RE: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes Interesting discussion ! I think that we all prefer the transparency as a principle. But we need to identify the advantages and the disadvantages of the 3 options. For the decertification, I was convinced by Sala’s argument and find that the impact of the decertification (removing an ALS from the RALO, ALAC and At-Large) justify or perhaps impose an open process. For the certification, and in case of the concerned RALO was divided in 2 groups, any open vote will result in a destruction of the relationship between part of the RALO and the ALAC members that I consider a major disadvantage, while a confidential vote would make the ALAC members express their opinion without causing any tension. I do appreciate the position of Alan with his flexibility. I can accept the option 2 even if I find that some ALAC members may make a courteously vote. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Message d'origine----- De : alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Evan Leibovitch Envoyé : vendredi 3 octobre 2014 20:28 À : Alan Greenberg Cc : ALAC Objet : Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes On 3 October 2014 14:59, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I have to question how much refinement we should be putting into something
that so far, has happened perhaps once every year or two or three and to
the best of my recollection has only been challenged once in our history.
Personally, I can readily accept 1 or 3. Which I have a preference for I
will keep to myself for the moment.
I would prefer not to take 2, but could accept it, but suspect it may make
us unable to properly fulfill our mandate and we would need to do some
additional investigation regarding the interpretation of the Bylaws and how
ombudsman issues are resolved.
Agreed, though I would go further and say I find #2 (completely secret) to be unacceptable. Sorry, Tijani, but you need to make a more compelling case of why complete vote secrecy -- that does not even trust the discretion of the ALAC chair -- is demanded. It is my view that we must have openness as the default action, and only compromise it (ie choice #1) in rare and exceptional circumstances. - Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. http://www.avast.com
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Evan Leibovitch -
Raf Fatani -
Tijani BEN JEMAA