I certainly did not vote in this poll *because I never
received a call to vote* which based on the text I assumed would come *if*
the poll was set up...
CLO
From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:iza@anr.org]
Sent: Monday, 10 September 2007 12:29 PM
To: Nick Ashton-Hart
Cc: At-Large Worldwide
Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Election of the ALAC Liaison to the ICANN
Board ofDirectors - result ?
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 ?
Reply-To: <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>
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-----
[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org ] De la part de
Izumi AIZU
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