Re: [EURO-Discuss] Voting procedure for ALAC seats
Christophe: Whilst I appreciate the spirit of compromise behind this proposal, may I remind everyone that this would be changing the decision reached in Lisbon on how to proceed - and at the last minute before the vote called for as agreed at that meeting. Again, this proposal would be a reconsideration of the decision of Lisbon. I would suggest, like on another proposal earlier to reconsider Lisbon outcomes, that the community should only entertain reconsidering something if there is the obvious support for doing so. That would, if we use the international standard for reconsideration of decisions, mean that two-thirds of the ALSes would have to agree to reconsider. If we continue down the path we are on, may I stress that you are simply deferring any discussion on real policy far into the future, you are endangering the ability of the ALAC members you (eventually) choose being able to attend and represent you in Lisbon, etc. I cannot imagine that any of you really wish to spend months more discussing procedure, having just spent years doing so? May I also further point out that holding a vote on the candidates is clearly the most democratically-recognised method of choosing your representatives. Let the voters decide! On 11/05/07, Dr. Christoph Bruch <bruch@humanistische-union.de> wrote:
Dear all,
we are about to take decisions which will have a strong influence not only on the way internet user from Europe are represented within ALAC but also in what atmosphere we will continue our cooperation.
I got the impression we are dealing with a constituency more or less split in half on whom to elect for the 2 ALAC seats: one group favouring Patrick/Sebastian the other group favouring Veronica
Therefore I suggest that we agree on sending Veronica and either Patrick or Sebastian.
That would leave us with two decisions: - Patrick or Sebastian - Who Veronica or Patrick/Sebastian should get the 2-year term.
If we can reach the agreement and decide the two remaining questions, we would either skip the vote or vote in a way to reach the desired result.
This way the rules would not be bent.
Maybe Patrick and Sebastian could negotiate amongst themselves who would withdraw his candidacy if we reach the agreement described above.
Christoph
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
Hi Nick, Just for the record: I did not propose to bend or change the agreed voting procedure. I suggested to find a compromise and to then vote accordingly. Christoph -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Nick Ashton-Hart Gesendet: Freitag, 11. Mai 2007 14:32 An: Dr. Christoph Bruch Cc: Discussion for At-Large Europe Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Voting procedure for ALAC seats Christophe: Whilst I appreciate the spirit of compromise behind this proposal, may I remind everyone that this would be changing the decision reached in Lisbon on how to proceed - and at the last minute before the vote called for as agreed at that meeting. Again, this proposal would be a reconsideration of the decision of Lisbon. I would suggest, like on another proposal earlier to reconsider Lisbon outcomes, that the community should only entertain reconsidering something if there is the obvious support for doing so. That would, if we use the international standard for reconsideration of decisions, mean that two-thirds of the ALSes would have to agree to reconsider. If we continue down the path we are on, may I stress that you are simply deferring any discussion on real policy far into the future, you are endangering the ability of the ALAC members you (eventually) choose being able to attend and represent you in Lisbon, etc. I cannot imagine that any of you really wish to spend months more discussing procedure, having just spent years doing so? May I also further point out that holding a vote on the candidates is clearly the most democratically-recognised method of choosing your representatives. Let the voters decide! On 11/05/07, Dr. Christoph Bruch <bruch@humanistische-union.de> wrote:
Dear all,
we are about to take decisions which will have a strong influence not only on the way internet user from Europe are represented within ALAC but also in what atmosphere we will continue our cooperation.
I got the impression we are dealing with a constituency more or less split in half on whom to elect for the 2 ALAC seats: one group favouring Patrick/Sebastian the other group favouring Veronica
Therefore I suggest that we agree on sending Veronica and either Patrick or Sebastian.
That would leave us with two decisions: - Patrick or Sebastian - Who Veronica or Patrick/Sebastian should get the 2-year term.
If we can reach the agreement and decide the two remaining questions, we would either skip the vote or vote in a way to reach the desired result.
This way the rules would not be bent.
Maybe Patrick and Sebastian could negotiate amongst themselves who would withdraw his candidacy if we reach the agreement described above.
Christoph
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i cann.org
-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i cann.org
Christoph Bruch wrote:
Just for the record: I did not propose to bend or change the agreed voting procedure. I suggested to find a compromise and to then vote accordingly.
Except for the fact that what you suggest is not a compromise. The common understanding of a compromise is something that goes in the direction of taking into account the opinion/needs of the different parties. Your "compromise" takes fully into consideration the position that we should not have two representatives from ISOC Chapters, while it does not take into consideration at all the position that we should not elect somebody who has no experience and has not contributed so far. Thomas is right when he states that there has been no serious attempt to find a consensus/compromise solution. All what I have heard so far is the mantra that we need a specific person for the sole reason of ensuring diversity. Cheers, Roberto
participants (3)
-
Christoph Bruch -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Roberto Gaetano