That is exactly what I think we should be doing. I am working with Nick on revising the DD and application form. If you'd like to participate, let me know. With regard to "either it meets the criteria or it doesn't" - that's still true. The criteria are not exact - it's not a numeric thing - over 10 you pass, under 10 you fail.... it's more like determining shades sometimes. But it is still an administrative function that the ALAC has, and we should all have the fullest information, and a common interpretation of the criteria and then each person should decide if it meets or doesn't, and vote accordingly. We can disagree... we don't have to reach consensus on all applications. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Siavash Shahshahani [mailto:shahshah@irnic.ir] Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2007 9:05 AM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: shahshah@irnic.ir; 'Vittorio Bertola'; 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: RE: [At-Large] ALS accreditation votes Hi Jacqueline, It would indeed be ideal to be able to discuss the ALS applicants freely, express possible reservations and come to a clear conclusion at least on an individual basis. If this were to take place I suspect we'll reach consensus in almost all cases. What has been holding us back? We've never had a really disciplined procedure for treating ALS applications, or rather we have not practiced discipline in the subject. Lest this be taken out of context against ALAC by whoever may be monitoring our conversations, let me add quickly that this is not anybody's fault, neither ALAC's, nor the Staff's; it is a predicament brought about by history. When we first joined ALAC, there were so few ALS applicants that the whole RALO process seemed endangered and most ALAC members enthusiastically endorsed all comers except some unusual cases. This ushered in a contest-free atmosphere, superficial DDs and ironically a lack of urgency to the point that we never got to examine a candidate until there was deadline pressure. This same approach is not working anymore; there are now many more applications and many new faces in ALAC. It seems to me that the way out of this is to practice a more rigorous approach: More detailed and thorough DDs, more active input from regional representatives and other regional bodies, and last but not least, starting ALAC discussion well before the deadline in each case, say a month. It is presumed that all preliminary examination be in place before this one-month discussion period so that only additional information asked for by ALAC voters be supplied during the one month. I think the Chair and the Staff should take the lead to bring this about. And, of course, not to forget the privacy problems Izumi has pointed to, there may be some grounds for carrying out the discussion in a more closed forum(??). Now a specific remark about something you wrote:
This vote is an administrative function. We have criteria to apply. Either the organisation meets the criteria or it doesn't.
You make it sound like an automaton could handle this. Why bother with ALAC vote then? There may be some formal criteria that the staff should check before the case comes up for discussion. But let us not forget what the whole game is all about. If we really believe in ALAC as a legitimate and respect-worthy body with a mandate to carry out, then we should allow its members to express their judgments in an independent and pressure-free manner. If ICANN measures 'success' of at-large participation by the number of certified ALSs, let them change the by laws and make the ALS certification a staff function. Siavash
With regard to influence, we will probably need to add some more questions to the application form and the DD form to be able to have more than a "strong suspicion" of undue influence from any sector - and we should move to include this in the criteria in a very specific way. But generally, if one member of the ALAC has this sort of information, I think that it should be shared with the whole and discussed. But I still don't think that it should mean abstention - in cases like this, it should mean that we go back to the applicant and ask for clarification, or to the staff doing the due diligence and ask for more information.
This seems to me to be the fairest, most objective way to look at these applicants. We owe it to them to get all the information, to consider and discuss, and to vote Yes or No in a timely manner except in the most rare of circumstances in which case an abstention can be cast, and to give them reasons for rejection so that they are not left in limbo.
Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Siavash Shahshahani [mailto:shahshah@irnic.ir] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 9:21 AM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: 'Vittorio Bertola'; 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALS accreditation votes
I feel that I have to throw in my two cents as the person who has perhaps contributed the greatest number of abstentions in the last 18 months. This does not go against my earlier statement that I will not further discuss my votes; it is just a discussion of general principles, no specific votes. 1.I don't agree with Jacqueline's characterization of abstentions as cop-outs; why couldn't the same term apply to all abstention votes in all voting situations as well? (Maybe you think it should.) On ALS applications abstention has generally had a clear message. At least in my case, when I had to go against the majority recommendation of the region, I abstained. I did explain this explicitly on at least on occasion saying that I abstained out of respect for the regional recommendation. So it was really a courteous no vote(and counted effectively as a 'no' because of the affirmation vote required). In cases where a party's application is rejected, I don't see why the majority could not get together and write an explanation.
2. In addition to formal ICANN by law criteria, my personal guide to voting has been my understanding of what 'at-large' really is. I have abstained or said 'no' when I had a strong suspicion that the particular candidate was under governmental or special-interest influence. Sometimes this is not so easy to discern, specially in the case of developing countries where govt influence is often very pervasive. Nevertheless, one could still look for clues of independence and autonomy; I wouldn't go for an automatic 'yes' just because the application comes from a less-developed country. Siavash
Hi Vittorio I agree that abstention should be rarely used, such as in cases of conflict of interest for example. Members of the ALAC should cast a valid vote - yes or no. Reasons for a rejection must be given by the ALAC as a whole, but those reasons do not necessarily have to be broken down by name of committee member. If we go the motions route, given that we vote pretty much as soon as the DD is ready, it may make the length of the process pass the 90 day deadline. Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb@bertola.eu] Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:34 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] ALS accreditation votes
I am moving the discussion to the global list - I really think that this is a matter that affects the entire constituency, not just the current ALAC members.
[The discussion is about modalities of voting for ALS accreditation - in particular, whether ALAC members who abstain or vote against should be required to provide explicit reasons for doing so, and whether individual votes should remain public as it is now, or be kept confidential.]
One ALAC member wrote:
- No matter what voting approach we apply (e.g. secret voting, opened voting), more important is the FEEDBACK we provide to the ALS applicants. So, that they are able to improve their structure/activities/priorities according to the established/provided criterias. For this purpose, the ALAC should provide a Letter with Recommendations on
behalf of the entire Committee.
I agree with you on this. However, the problem we have is that the failure to approve is the result of the sum of individual opinions, so when the applicant asks "why did you reject my application, and what do I have to do to improve?", you do not have an answer... perhaps there is no answer, since the people that did not vote in favour might have done so for very different reasons.
I understand that some people might be afraid about having to explain why they took a position against, especially in countries where there might be social backlash arising from that. But it is also unreasonable to deny participatory rights to someone, and when asked why, either say "we don't know" (which makes it look like the Committee is not serious and does not think before acting) or "we refuse to tell you" (which is even worse).
In the end, excluding someone from the constituency in which they want to participate is quite a serious action, that must be backed by strong and clear reasons, also because it might (and will, in most cases) be subject to appeal to the Ombudsman or to the Board.
Perhaps, if individual members have a problem in expressing themselves publicly, we could change the system so that, in the due diligence phase, those who are against write a motion to reject, stating also the reasons why they think that the application should be rejected. In that way, on the ballot you would have to pick one of two motions, one saying "yes" and one saying "no, because..."; in that case, if the "no" prevails, there would already be collective reasons stated and there would be no need for members to provide explanations individually.
So, basically we would have: - a due diligence phase as usual; - before the deadline for starting the vote, any member can privately submit to the Chair a motion against, if he/she thinks that the application is to be rejected; the author(s) of the motion shall remain confidential; - if no motions against are proposed, the application is approved on a "no objections" basis; - if there are motions against, then we vote (publicly or privately, as we prefer) and we have a clear result.
I would really like to get rid of abstentions - they were meant only for direct conflict of interests (e.g. voting on one's own organization), but in the end either the application meets the criteria, or it doesn't - members should not refrain from taking a position on that, and in the end, they can still not vote at all. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/842 - Release Date: 6/9/2007 10:46 AM
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/842 - Release Date: 6/9/2007 10:46 AM
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir -----------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007 5:10 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007 5:10 PM
------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir ----------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007 5:10 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007 5:10 PM