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