Thanks for your note Izumi.

With respect to the vote - Jacqueline was asking for a vote, clearly, either using the voting tool, or by having individual votes sent to me personally - there was no question of whether or not there was to be a vote or not.

You will also I trust recall my note, in reply to Jacqueline, on 6 September, confirming my understanding of Jacqueline calling a vote and confirming that I would create one; on 7 September I then stated that I had set one up and in both cases made clear that if I was operating on old information, due to my having very limited connectivity, that you should accept my apologies in advance if I was operating on old information.

As to your note about my not taking elements into consideration and trying to move you in a direction, nothing could be farther from the truth. The chair called a vote on two proposals. I followed her direction, as best I could, and set one up. I confirmed with her in a telephone call last night that I have been acting as directed by her throughout this business. It is therefore not accurate to portray me as in any way interfering or operating in any way improperly. 

On the bigger question here: it is entirely normal practice in meetings that once a vote has been called by the Chair on a question, a vote proceeds; it is too late to withdraw proposals once the voting has begun - voting having begun when the vote is called for. It is a mystery to me how such a basic and fundamental principle of good order in meetings can have been so completely not understood - especially since the draft ROPs call for the above as the resolution to any situation in which consensus is not reached. I would hope that all Members would carefully review, one further time, the draft ROPs. If you do so, you will find that much of the debate of the last several days would actually have been out of order - once voting has been commenced, debate about the vote is over. 

If the ALAC had done what it intended - to conclude the rules of procedure for conducting its work - in advance of the vote on the board liaison, then NONE of this to-ing and fro-ing would have happened. A great deal of time wasted in tendentious emails would have been avoided. It would seem to me that rather than expending lots of further time and effort in attempting to place blame on the staff for following the directions of the chair, all this effort could now be turned much more profitably to matters such as:

1) Agreeing ROPs so as to avoid another such episode as this one.

2) Discussing how to have a meeting schedule in LA that allows for a vision for the community to be developed in coordination with the regional Secretariats, who have asked for funding to attend LA for just this purpose

3) Discussing current policy issues of concern to the community and responses to them

Or indeed almost any other subject or task. 

Of course, nobody can stop you from continuing this discussion but I beseech you - please, consider from the outside how this all looks and ask yourself if the view of the committee it presents is the one you wish people to see.

On 10 Sep 2007, at 04:28, Izumi AIZU wrote:

So the vote results clearly indicates it did not reach the
quorum.

I read Jaqueline's email, and assume others, too.
So it is not wheter we read it or not, but her text is
also confusing - she moved, but without specifics.

She wrote "Nick - shall we set up a poll or
go via email to you?"

Then the ononle voting was setup, but at least some of us are
further confused by Aaln's withdrawal or the request etc.
Others may have felt the voting itself is not necesarry
given the situation - Alan withdrew the request.

You don't seem to take these other important elements into consideration
and trying to move us to only one direction. THat is why a number
of ALAC members feel you are trying too much. I hope you see yourself
in the bigger picture.

izumi


2007/9/10, Nick Ashton-Hart < nick.ashton-hart@icann.org>:
From a number of emails on this list it appears that Members may not have read the email below from Jacqueline. This is the reason why a vote as below was held. 

The result of the vote below is as follows, and may be independently verified at:  http://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=QCaKS5KXqpkBg8buLjLm

Poll Results

Poll menu: ALAC Board Liaison Election
Report date: Sun 09 Sep 2007 18:33 UTC


Resuls of the 2007/2008 ALAC Board Liaison Election

As at: Fri 07 Sep 2007 23:59 UTC
Number of voters: 5
Ranked by votes  
Rank
Decision
Votes
%
1
The two ALAC Members who have not voted should be permitted to cast their vote
3
60.00
2
The existing election should stand as final
2
40.00




Begin forwarded message:

From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>
Date: 5 September 2007 15:53:19 GMT+02:00
To: <sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr>, "'Izumi AIZU'" < iza@anr.org>, "'Nick Ashton-Hart'" <nick.ashton-hart@icann.org>
Cc: "'At-Large Worldwide'" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: RE: [At-Large] Election of the ALAC Liaison to the ICANN Board ofDirectors - result ?

Hi 
We have 2 motions seconded  on the table now - 
1)  To call the vote as is leaving out the people who who weren't able to
vote  - but tried/wanted - to vote
2) To extend the voting for 2 days to allow the people who weren't able to
vote  - but tried/wanted - to vote

So I move for a vote now for either 1 or 2. Nick - shall we set up a poll or
go via email to you? I thought I had access to set up polls, but I seem not
to be able to right now.

Jacqueline

-----Original Message-----
From: Sébastien Bachollet [ mailto:sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 09:16
To: 'Izumi AIZU'; jam@jacquelinemorris.com
Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide'
Subject: RE: [At-Large] Election of the ALAC Liaison to the ICANN Board
ofDirectors - result ?

I support this motion seconded.
All the best

Sébastien Bachollet
Président

-----Message d'origine-----
Envoyé : mercredi 5 septembre 2007 04:32
Cc : At-Large Worldwide
Objet : Re: [At-Large] Election of the ALAC Liaison to the ICANN Board
ofDirectors - result ?

I second Jaqueline's proposal. Let' make a minimum
allowance for the two to vote, but not re-open the
entire vote.

izumi

2007/9/5, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>:
We won't know
But I think that they may want to vote, given that there was a mixup in
the
timelines. We should give them the opportunity, and one has already
indicated that they wanted to vote, but was confused given the RoP vote
timeline and tried to vote when it was somewhat cleared up but it was
already closed, so I would agree with the suggestion that we extend the
vote
for a couple more days to allow the last 2 to vote if they want. Nobody
else
will change their vote, but those 2 should not be disenfranchised by the
holiday/moving/miscommunication.
Jacqueline

-----Original Message-----
From: John L [ mailto:johnl@iecc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 14:10
To: At-Large Worldwide
Subject: Re: [At-Large] Election of the ALAC Liaison to the ICANN Board of
Directors - result ?

I would propose that with 87% of the committee voting, that indeed we
have not only a quorum - but a super quorum at that. ...

If there's only two votes left, can they change the result?   If not,
there's no point to waiting.

R's,
John

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list


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: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.3/986 - Release Date: 9/3/2007
09:31


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.3/986 - Release Date: 9/3/2007
09:31



_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list


At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org




--

--

--
Regards,
 
Nick Ashton-Hart
Director, At-Large
ICANN
Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88
USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
Fax: +41 (22) 595 85 44
mobile: +41 (79) 595 54 68
email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org
Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart