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/ <--------
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
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 -----------------------------------------------
Thanks Vittorio for moving this to the public list, and I agree it should be so. 2007/6/12, Siavash Shahshahani <shahshah@irnic.ir>:
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.
And I would echo with what Siavsh wrote below. I was worried since he said it was the only posting on this matter, he may refrain from making futher comments. So even it is of general principles, it helps us a lot.
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.
What I strongly agree with is the different interpretation of the "abstention" he suggested here.
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.
Not only the developing countries, but there are certain developed countries where similar social culture exit - you may not expect unless you live there. izumi
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
-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org
Hi Siavash Yet again, I think that abstention is a specific tool for use in very limited situations - one being in the case of a conflict of interest - voting on one's own organization, for example. Using it because one chooses not to make a decision - on something controversial for example, to me is not doing the job that we were put here to do. There is time for discussion within the ALAC. If someone has questions or disagrees with the regional recommendation, I think that is a cause for discussion - maybe that person has seen something that the region missed, or the region has information that the person is lacking. In either case, we should discuss it so that the decision is made with the most information possible. If your decision is no - then it should be entered as such, and not as an abstention to spare the feelings of the region. Abstentions do not count as no, but they do count as we have rules that require a certain number of valid votes. If not enough valid (yes/no) votes are cast (too many abstentions), as has happened in the last voting cycle, then the applicant is in limbo - neither certified nor rejected with a clear list of reasons. The application may continue to have many abstentions and not enough votes for voting session after voting session after voting session. Will they then stay in limbo? They don't get any reasons for the abstentions, and they aren't rejected and given reasons so they can change to fit the criteria if they so desire. This vote is an administrative function. We have criteria to apply. Either the organisation meets the criteria or it doesn't. If it doesn't, the ALAC has a requirement to say why. So, the people who vote no should have a requirement to say why - otherwise how can we send the reasons to the applicant? The criteria do not have an automatic yes free pass for a developing country, and I would never suggest such a thing. 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
As agreed at the conf call today, I would like to move this discussion at the San Juan meeting in a closed and face-to-face meeting. I like to say, in advnace, that even some people think this is "administrative", and it will largely be so, there will be cases which may be seen as more "political" or substantive than just administrative. I also like to say, sometimes abstention is used to show certain will, not yes not no, and we should also respect that. Making it black or what looks simpler and better, I respectfuly disagree. And as I emphasized in the conference call, we have very different values and ideas about how election/voting/decisions be made on this planet earth by region. I have seen it happened at the first "global" AtLarge Director election - but to me at that time it was seen as "experiment" and people did not pay much attention to the basic rule of election/voting - the result is to terminate the election as a whole. So we should be really careful for some of the seemingly monior points to think of the unintended or unexpeted consequesnce and interpretations. izumi 2007/6/13, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>:
Hi Siavash Yet again, I think that abstention is a specific tool for use in very limited situations - one being in the case of a conflict of interest - voting on one's own organization, for example. Using it because one chooses not to make a decision - on something controversial for example, to me is not doing the job that we were put here to do. There is time for discussion within the ALAC. If someone has questions or disagrees with the regional recommendation, I think that is a cause for discussion - maybe that person has seen something that the region missed, or the region has information that the person is lacking. In either case, we should discuss it so that the decision is made with the most information possible. If your decision is no - then it should be entered as such, and not as an abstention to spare the feelings of the region.
Abstentions do not count as no, but they do count as we have rules that require a certain number of valid votes. If not enough valid (yes/no) votes are cast (too many abstentions), as has happened in the last voting cycle, then the applicant is in limbo - neither certified nor rejected with a clear list of reasons. The application may continue to have many abstentions and not enough votes for voting session after voting session after voting session. Will they then stay in limbo? They don't get any reasons for the abstentions, and they aren't rejected and given reasons so they can change to fit the criteria if they so desire.
This vote is an administrative function. We have criteria to apply. Either the organisation meets the criteria or it doesn't. If it doesn't, the ALAC has a requirement to say why. So, the people who vote no should have a requirement to say why - otherwise how can we send the reasons to the applicant? The criteria do not have an automatic yes free pass for a developing country, and I would never suggest such a thing.
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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org
I still personally believe that one should cast a valid vote in almost all cases, and also personally that not voting is a dereliction of the duty that we have taken on. And I still believe that the best way to say a polite no is to say "no" and "this is why I said no - it isn't personal." Abstention can mean a lot of things, so it isn't clear that it is no. No is definitely NO. But I looked until I found a definition that can possibly support Siavash's position on an abstention being a polite no. See below. Abstention is a term in parliamentary procedure for when a participant in a vote is not absent, but does not cast a ballot. An abstention may be used to indicate the voting individual's ambivalence about the measure, or mild disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition. If we agree to accept this definition then we may have to change the way that we count votes for the applicants - we cannot have a system that allows applicants to lie in limbo without any reasons. I also think that it is important for us to say why we say no or polite no - it's important for the applicants, it's important for us when we have to look at the criteria now and in the future, it's important for the new ALAC members to look back and keep a certain standard going and not have the application of criteria change as the members of the ALAC change. It's important for us to stand behind our votes, to say why we voted the way we did. It doesn't have to be publicly identifiable information, to take into consideration Izumi's points about Government and other pressures, potential loss of life etc, but I feel strongly that we have to stand up and say - this is what I think. (even if I is anonymous!) In some of the bits above I might sound to some of you like a naïve idealist, but there are some things that I really feel strongly about, and standing up and shouldering what I feel is our responsibility to the constituency is definitely one of them. Generally I'm really practical, though :) Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:iza@anr.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 1:25 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: shahshah@irnic.ir; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALS accreditation votes As agreed at the conf call today, I would like to move this discussion at the San Juan meeting in a closed and face-to-face meeting. I like to say, in advnace, that even some people think this is "administrative", and it will largely be so, there will be cases which may be seen as more "political" or substantive than just administrative. I also like to say, sometimes abstention is used to show certain will, not yes not no, and we should also respect that. Making it black or what looks simpler and better, I respectfuly disagree. And as I emphasized in the conference call, we have very different values and ideas about how election/voting/decisions be made on this planet earth by region. I have seen it happened at the first "global" AtLarge Director election - but to me at that time it was seen as "experiment" and people did not pay much attention to the basic rule of election/voting - the result is to terminate the election as a whole. So we should be really careful for some of the seemingly monior points to think of the unintended or unexpeted consequesnce and interpretations. izumi 2007/6/13, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>:
Hi Siavash Yet again, I think that abstention is a specific tool for use in very limited situations - one being in the case of a conflict of interest - voting on one's own organization, for example. Using it because one chooses not to make a decision - on something controversial for example, to me is not doing the job that we were put here to do. There is time for discussion within the ALAC. If someone has questions or disagrees with the regional recommendation, I think that is a cause for discussion - maybe that person has seen something that the region missed, or the region has information that the person is lacking. In either case, we should discuss it so that the decision is made with the most information possible. If your decision is no - then it should be entered as such, and not as an abstention to spare the feelings of the region.
Abstentions do not count as no, but they do count as we have rules that require a certain number of valid votes. If not enough valid (yes/no) votes are cast (too many abstentions), as has happened in the last voting cycle, then the applicant is in limbo - neither certified nor rejected with a clear list of reasons. The application may continue to have many abstentions and not enough votes for voting session after voting session after voting session. Will they then stay in limbo? They don't get any reasons for the abstentions, and they aren't rejected and given reasons so they can change to fit the criteria if they so desire.
This vote is an administrative function. We have criteria to apply. Either the organisation meets the criteria or it doesn't. If it doesn't, the ALAC has a requirement to say why. So, the people who vote no should have a requirement to say why - otherwise how can we send the reasons to the applicant? The criteria do not have an automatic yes free pass for a developing country, and I would never suggest such a thing.
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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org 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
I have no problem, Jqcqueline, to be idealist and stand behind your act. I am not so sure to "impose" that to every act of every individual every time. There is a meaningful difference between No and polite no, or amviguous position and in a reare occasion, this could happen to you or me. I like to preserve the last resort like that just in case... I will stop here and let's talk in San Juan on this matter. izumi 2007/6/13, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>:
I still personally believe that one should cast a valid vote in almost all cases, and also personally that not voting is a dereliction of the duty that we have taken on. And I still believe that the best way to say a polite no is to say "no" and "this is why I said no - it isn't personal." Abstention can mean a lot of things, so it isn't clear that it is no. No is definitely NO. But I looked until I found a definition that can possibly support Siavash's position on an abstention being a polite no. See below.
Abstention is a term in parliamentary procedure for when a participant in a vote is not absent, but does not cast a ballot. An abstention may be used to indicate the voting individual's ambivalence about the measure, or mild disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition.
If we agree to accept this definition then we may have to change the way that we count votes for the applicants - we cannot have a system that allows applicants to lie in limbo without any reasons.
I also think that it is important for us to say why we say no or polite no - it's important for the applicants, it's important for us when we have to look at the criteria now and in the future, it's important for the new ALAC members to look back and keep a certain standard going and not have the application of criteria change as the members of the ALAC change.
It's important for us to stand behind our votes, to say why we voted the way we did. It doesn't have to be publicly identifiable information, to take into consideration Izumi's points about Government and other pressures, potential loss of life etc, but I feel strongly that we have to stand up and say - this is what I think. (even if I is anonymous!)
In some of the bits above I might sound to some of you like a naïve idealist, but there are some things that I really feel strongly about, and standing up and shouldering what I feel is our responsibility to the constituency is definitely one of them. Generally I'm really practical, though :)
Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:iza@anr.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 1:25 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: shahshah@irnic.ir; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALS accreditation votes
As agreed at the conf call today, I would like to move this discussion at the San Juan meeting in a closed and face-to-face meeting.
I like to say, in advnace, that even some people think this is "administrative", and it will largely be so, there will be cases which may be seen as more "political" or substantive than just administrative.
I also like to say, sometimes abstention is used to show certain will, not yes not no, and we should also respect that. Making it black or what looks simpler and better, I respectfuly disagree.
And as I emphasized in the conference call, we have very different values and ideas about how election/voting/decisions be made on this planet earth by region. I have seen it happened at the first "global" AtLarge Director election - but to me at that time it was seen as "experiment" and people did not pay much attention to the basic rule of election/voting - the result is to terminate the election as a whole. So we should be really careful for some of the seemingly monior points to think of the unintended or unexpeted consequesnce and interpretations.
izumi
2007/6/13, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>:
Hi Siavash Yet again, I think that abstention is a specific tool for use in very limited situations - one being in the case of a conflict of interest - voting on one's own organization, for example. Using it because one chooses not to make a decision - on something controversial for example, to me is not doing the job that we were put here to do. There is time for discussion within the ALAC. If someone has questions or disagrees with the regional recommendation, I think that is a cause for discussion - maybe that person has seen something that the region missed, or the region has information that the person is lacking. In either case, we should discuss it so that the decision is made with the most information possible. If your decision is no - then it should be entered as such, and not as an abstention to spare the feelings of the region.
Abstentions do not count as no, but they do count as we have rules that require a certain number of valid votes. If not enough valid (yes/no) votes are cast (too many abstentions), as has happened in the last voting cycle, then the applicant is in limbo - neither certified nor rejected with a clear list of reasons. The application may continue to have many abstentions and not enough votes for voting session after voting session after voting session. Will they then stay in limbo? They don't get any reasons for the abstentions, and they aren't rejected and given reasons so they can change to fit the criteria if they so desire.
This vote is an administrative function. We have criteria to apply. Either the organisation meets the criteria or it doesn't. If it doesn't, the ALAC has a requirement to say why. So, the people who vote no should have a requirement to say why - otherwise how can we send the reasons to the applicant? The criteria do not have an automatic yes free pass for a developing country, and I would never suggest such a thing.
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
_______________________________________________ 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
-- >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org
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
-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org
The definition below " ambivalence/mild disapproval" describes my initial assessment during the last voting process and agree that this issue does need/deserve time and space for discussion in San Juan. alice
But I looked until I found a definition that can possibly support Siavash's position on an abstention being a polite no. See below.
Abstention is a term in parliamentary procedure for when a participant in a vote is not absent, but does not cast a ballot. An abstention may be used to indicate the voting individual's ambivalence about the measure, or mild disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition.
If we agree to accept this definition then we may have to change the way that we count votes for the applicants - we cannot have a system that allows applicants to lie in limbo without any reasons.
I also think that it is important for us to say why we say no or polite no - it's important for the applicants, it's important for us when we have to look at the criteria now and in the future, it's important for the new ALAC members to look back and keep a certain standard going and not have the application of criteria change as the members of the ALAC change.
It's important for us to stand behind our votes, to say why we voted the way we did. It doesn't have to be publicly identifiable information, to take into consideration Izumi's points about Government and other pressures, potential loss of life etc, but I feel strongly that we have to stand up and say - this is what I think. (even if I is anonymous!)
In some of the bits above I might sound to some of you like a naïve idealist, but there are some things that I really feel strongly about, and standing up and shouldering what I feel is our responsibility to the constituency is definitely one of them. Generally I'm really practical, though :)
Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:iza@anr.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 1:25 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: shahshah@irnic.ir; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALS accreditation votes
As agreed at the conf call today, I would like to move this discussion at the San Juan meeting in a closed and face-to-face meeting.
I like to say, in advnace, that even some people think this is "administrative", and it will largely be so, there will be cases which may be seen as more "political" or substantive than just administrative.
I also like to say, sometimes abstention is used to show certain will, not yes not no, and we should also respect that. Making it black or what looks simpler and better, I respectfuly disagree.
And as I emphasized in the conference call, we have very different values and ideas about how election/voting/decisions be made on this planet earth by region. I have seen it happened at the first "global" AtLarge Director election - but to me at that time it was seen as "experiment" and people did not pay much attention to the basic rule of election/voting - the result is to terminate the election as a whole. So we should be really careful for some of the seemingly monior points to think of the unintended or unexpeted consequesnce and interpretations.
izumi
2007/6/13, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>:
Hi Siavash Yet again, I think that abstention is a specific tool for use in very limited situations - one being in the case of a conflict of interest - voting on one's own organization, for example. Using it because one
chooses
not to make a decision - on something controversial for example, to me is not doing the job that we were put here to do. There is time for
discussion
within the ALAC. If someone has questions or disagrees with the regional recommendation, I think that is a cause for discussion - maybe that person has seen something that the region missed, or the region has information that the person is lacking. In either case, we should discuss it so that
the
decision is made with the most information possible. If your decision is
no
- then it should be entered as such, and not as an abstention to spare the feelings of the region.
Abstentions do not count as no, but they do count as we have rules that require a certain number of valid votes. If not enough valid (yes/no)
votes
are cast (too many abstentions), as has happened in the last voting cycle, then the applicant is in limbo - neither certified nor rejected with a
clear
list of reasons. The application may continue to have many abstentions and not enough votes for voting session after voting session after voting session. Will they then stay in limbo? They don't get any reasons for the abstentions, and they aren't rejected and given reasons so they can change to fit the criteria if they so desire.
This vote is an administrative function. We have criteria to apply. Either the organisation meets the criteria or it doesn't. If it doesn't, the ALAC has a requirement to say why. So, the people who vote no should have a requirement to say why - otherwise how can we send the reasons to the applicant? The criteria do not have an automatic yes free pass for a developing country, and I would never suggest such a thing.
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
_______________________________________________ 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
I fully understand Siavash' opinion, and I believe that, although we have to converge on a common system where "Yes", "No", "Abstain" have standard meanings, we can live with some differences related to cultural differences within ALAC. However, I am just wondering whether a motivated "no" could not be more useful for the applicant (who could maybe even cure the cause of the denial, and resubmit a proposal), and a better transparency of ALAC (which would also mean less chances to have complaints raised after the vote). I think that if there is a disagreement with the regional vote, it should be OK to express it (or otherwise why vote at all, instead of just letting the region decide). Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jacqueline A. Morris Sent: 12 June 2007 20:07 To: 'Izumi AIZU' Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALS accreditation votes
I still personally believe that one should cast a valid vote in almost all cases, and also personally that not voting is a dereliction of the duty that we have taken on. And I still believe that the best way to say a polite no is to say "no" and "this is why I said no - it isn't personal." Abstention can mean a lot of things, so it isn't clear that it is no. No is definitely NO. But I looked until I found a definition that can possibly support Siavash's position on an abstention being a polite no. See below.
Abstention is a term in parliamentary procedure for when a participant in a vote is not absent, but does not cast a ballot. An abstention may be used to indicate the voting individual's ambivalence about the measure, or mild disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition.
If we agree to accept this definition then we may have to change the way that we count votes for the applicants - we cannot have a system that allows applicants to lie in limbo without any reasons.
I also think that it is important for us to say why we say no or polite no - it's important for the applicants, it's important for us when we have to look at the criteria now and in the future, it's important for the new ALAC members to look back and keep a certain standard going and not have the application of criteria change as the members of the ALAC change.
It's important for us to stand behind our votes, to say why we voted the way we did. It doesn't have to be publicly identifiable information, to take into consideration Izumi's points about Government and other pressures, potential loss of life etc, but I feel strongly that we have to stand up and say - this is what I think. (even if I is anonymous!)
In some of the bits above I might sound to some of you like a naïve idealist, but there are some things that I really feel strongly about, and standing up and shouldering what I feel is our responsibility to the constituency is definitely one of them. Generally I'm really practical, though :)
Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:iza@anr.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 1:25 PM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: shahshah@irnic.ir; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALS accreditation votes
As agreed at the conf call today, I would like to move this discussion at the San Juan meeting in a closed and face-to-face meeting.
I like to say, in advnace, that even some people think this is "administrative", and it will largely be so, there will be cases which may be seen as more "political" or substantive than just administrative.
I also like to say, sometimes abstention is used to show certain will, not yes not no, and we should also respect that. Making it black or what looks simpler and better, I respectfuly disagree.
And as I emphasized in the conference call, we have very different values and ideas about how election/voting/decisions be made on this planet earth by region. I have seen it happened at the first "global" AtLarge Director election - but to me at that time it was seen as "experiment" and people did not pay much attention to the basic rule of election/voting - the result is to terminate the election as a whole. So we should be really careful for some of the seemingly monior points to think of the unintended or unexpeted consequesnce and interpretations.
izumi
2007/6/13, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>:
Hi Siavash Yet again, I think that abstention is a specific tool for use in very limited situations - one being in the case of a conflict of interest - voting on one's own organization, for example. Using it because one chooses not to make a decision - on something controversial for example, to me is not doing the job that we were put here to do. There is time for discussion within the ALAC. If someone has questions or disagrees with the regional recommendation, I think that is a cause for discussion - maybe that person has seen something that the region missed, or the region has information that the person is lacking. In either case, we should discuss it so that the decision is made with the most information possible. If your decision is no - then it should be entered as such, and not as an abstention to spare the feelings of the region.
Abstentions do not count as no, but they do count as we have rules that require a certain number of valid votes. If not enough valid (yes/no) votes are cast (too many abstentions), as has happened in the last voting cycle, then the applicant is in limbo - neither certified nor rejected with a clear list of reasons. The application may continue to have many abstentions and not enough votes for voting session after voting session after voting session. Will they then stay in limbo? They don't get any reasons for the abstentions, and they aren't rejected and given reasons so they can change to fit the criteria if they so desire.
This vote is an administrative function. We have criteria to apply. Either the organisation meets the criteria or it doesn't. If it doesn't, the ALAC has a requirement to say why. So, the people who vote no should have a requirement to say why - otherwise how can we send the reasons to the applicant? The criteria do not have an automatic yes free pass for a developing country, and I would never suggest such a thing.
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-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC
Independent:
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-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC
Independent:
------------------------------------------------- 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
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- >> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org
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
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
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 -----------------------------------------------
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
Siavash Shahshahani ha scritto:
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.
Let me explain what is meant by saying that this is an administrative function and not a political one. The difference is the same between being judges in a jury (administrative function) or politicians in a parliament (political function). In the first case, the judges in the jury do not make or change the rules, and do not have any freedom in terms of policy; they take the policy that someone else decided, and apply it by the letter in the most objective possible manner; they have to be uniform and accountable on how they apply the law. In the second case, instead, parliamentarians are free to take whatever position they like, change or make new policy, and even act differently in similar situations; they are accountable not through objective criteria, but through the system used to select them. In our case, the criteria for accrediting ALSes are not decided by the ALAC, but by the Board (even if the ALAC proposes them). The ALAC can only stick by these criteria and administer them in a fair and uniform way, like judges in a jury, comparing applications to the criteria and determining whether they are met. It is, actually, a staff-like function; the only reason why it was attributed to the Committee is because, five years ago, several people were afraid that ICANN staff could try to capture the constituency, and so we thought that ALAC members would be more accountable judges about the criteria. But if ALAC members (for a number of understandable and good faith reasons) start to be unaccountable in administrative terms, by not explaining how they administer these criteria or why they think that they are not met by a specific application, or by applying them in a non-uniform manner thus being unfair to specific applicants, then the system does not work any more, and the Ombudsman and the Board will rightfully complain. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
First of all applying 'administrative function' to what the judges do is new to me; the court clerks perform the administrative function. Even if you look at WIPO literature for dispute resolution, you'll see they make a clear distinction between the 'administrative' part of the proceedings(which does not involve the panel judgment) and the judgment itself. I'm not asking for anything beyond ICANN by laws. If by laws can be administered by an automaton, let it be done. Otherwise human judgment is required, and that's what the voting ultimately manifests. Siavash
Siavash Shahshahani ha scritto:
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.
Let me explain what is meant by saying that this is an administrative function and not a political one.
The difference is the same between being judges in a jury (administrative function) or politicians in a parliament (political function). In the first case, the judges in the jury do not make or change the rules, and do not have any freedom in terms of policy; they take the policy that someone else decided, and apply it by the letter in the most objective possible manner; they have to be uniform and accountable on how they apply the law. In the second case, instead, parliamentarians are free to take whatever position they like, change or make new policy, and even act differently in similar situations; they are accountable not through objective criteria, but through the system used to select them.
In our case, the criteria for accrediting ALSes are not decided by the ALAC, but by the Board (even if the ALAC proposes them). The ALAC can only stick by these criteria and administer them in a fair and uniform way, like judges in a jury, comparing applications to the criteria and determining whether they are met. It is, actually, a staff-like function; the only reason why it was attributed to the Committee is because, five years ago, several people were afraid that ICANN staff could try to capture the constituency, and so we thought that ALAC members would be more accountable judges about the criteria. But if ALAC members (for a number of understandable and good faith reasons) start to be unaccountable in administrative terms, by not explaining how they administer these criteria or why they think that they are not met by a specific application, or by applying them in a non-uniform manner thus being unfair to specific applicants, then the system does not work any more, and the Ombudsman and the Board will rightfully complain. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------
Abstentions/voting: Once things are chizeled in stone, it's very hard for things to chance, therefore the utmost care should be used when voting for things. I would be offended if someone asked me to dignify a vote for any reason. Most people do and should abstain from voting 1) not enough information is available or practical to cast a vote - kinda like state congresses asking voters to vote for proposals/bills etc. There is never enough info on these things to cast an educated vote, therefore one should abstain. 2) conflict of interest 3) because it should be a right of the voter to abstain. -Randy Glass A@L 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
-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org
participants (7)
-
alice -
Izumi AIZU -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
RJGlass | America＠Large -
Roberto Gaetano -
Siavash Shahshahani -
Vittorio Bertola