On 6/12/07, Siavash Shahshahani <shahshah@irnic.ir> wrote:

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
-----------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
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