July 2013 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection
by Alan Greenberg July 25, 2013

July 25, 2013

Tom, I presume that by "incumbent" you mean people in office such as the ALAC members or ALAC Chair (usually it is used referring to the person who is in office but is in a contested election). I guess our experiences are different. Certainly someone who is part of a current organization is familiar with the others who may be in a contested election. But KNOW is definitely not the same as TRUST and not infrequently KNOW is synonymous with wanting someone new. (And I am not implying anything about the people in the current election). Alan At 21/07/2013 02:34 PM, toml(a)communisphere.com wrote: >Alan, > >What I am trying to say is that incumbents will better know and >trust a known player. Amopholy (sp?), might describe the human >response that Option 4 draws upon. There are both good and bad >associated with this. Random is life. > >Best, > >T9m Lowenhaupt

10 18

Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection
by Alan Greenberg July 23, 2013

July 23, 2013

I need to look at Garth's report before answering... At 23/07/2013 01:13 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Alan, would a statement from the ALAC have any effect on the ATRT2 >investigation of this? Is it aware how many cases have been closed >without resolution? > > >On 23 July 2013 13:03, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >This was not a new announcement but a re-affirmation that the >reporting structure would continue as the gTLD structure is cleaved >off. It is a relationship that the ATRT-2 is looking at carefully in >its review of the WHOIS RT implementation review. > >Alan > > >At 23/07/2013 12:17 PM, Bob Bruen wrote: >Hi Evan, > >He made the same announcement when he first took office. I guess >somehow he forgot that or lost the reporting chain. > > --bob > > >On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >Fadi made a specific point that Complance will report directly to him >during the speech in which he announced the spin off of the gTLD >expansion into a separate division. > >It's probably time for the ALAC to issue specific advice to the Board and >CEO to take care of this backlog. Copy to ATRT2, as IMO this is a massive >accountability issue. > >I propose us collectively writing such a formal statement of advice, to be >agreed to by NARALO consensus and then advanced to ALAC (which I would >commit to do). > > > >On 23 July 2013 11:52, Garth Bruen ><<mailto:gbruen@knujon.com>gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: > >Thanks Danny, it's actually even worse than most are aware of. Hope to have >more details soon. > > > >From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] >Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 12:51 PM >To: Garth Bruen; 'Kieren McCarthy'; ><mailto:na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection > > > >Garth, > >Thanks for the update. Having read your report and having noted the June >Compliance update (1892 complaints - 4 enforcement actions), it's fairly >clear that the primary function of the Compliance department is two-fold: >(1) citing registrars for "Failure to pay past due accreditation fees >pursuant to Section 3.9 of the RAA" and (2) sweeping everything else under >the rug. > >I appreciate your ongoing efforts to deal with this matter. > >Danny Younger > > > > > > _____ > >From: Garth Bruen <<mailto:gbruen@knujon.com>gbruen(a)knujon.com> >To: 'Kieren McCarthy' ><<mailto:kierenmccarthy@gmail.com>kierenmccarthy(a)gmail.com>; ><mailto:na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 12:15 PM >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection > > >Kieren, > >Thanks for the comment. Our elections are critical and getting them right >is >even more important. > >As far as reporting goes I would like to draw your attention to this >document: ><http://www.knujon.com/icann_compliance_2012.pdf>http://www.knujon.com/icann_compliance_2012.pdf ><http://www.knujon.com/icann_compliance_2012.pdf> which shows that >ICANN's internal compliance function is essentially non-functional >regardless of recently published data by ICANN. This was a follow up to a >report sent directly to the CEO >( ><http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/bruen-to-chehade-22apr13-en.pdf>http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/bruen-to-chehade-22apr13-en.pdf >) which has not been responded to. > >ICANN is failing the public At-Large and won't discuss these core concerns, >has been completely silent on them. I think you can help by raising your >voice to ask about them as well from within our community. > >There is a very long report log here: > ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Durban+Meeting+Reports+>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Durban+Meeting+Reports+ >Workspace which is being constantly updated by At-Large representatives, >even remote ones. Working groups regularly give reports on our monthly >calls. We'd love to have you come on and give your perspective, let me >know. > >So, it's not really a question of reporting from At-Large, it's more of a >question of why we have to leave our families and travel thousands of miles >just to be ignored by ICANN. It's really not that much fun. If the problems >could be solved and questions answered, we wouldn't have to go at all. > >-Garth > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: ><mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren >McCarthy >Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 11:09 PM >To: ><mailto:na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection > >I wish as much time, energy and effort had gone into informing us about the >meeting you were paid as our representatives to attend last week in Durban >as has been out into bickering about voting procedures. > > >Kieren > > >[from mobile device] > >On Jul 21, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >wrote: > >Tom, > >I presume that by "incumbent" you mean people in office such as the ALAC > >members or ALAC Chair (usually it is used referring to the person who is in >office but is in a contested election). > >I guess our experiences are different. Certainly someone who is part of a > >current organization is familiar with the others who may be in a contested >election. But KNOW is definitely not the same as TRUST and not infrequently >KNOW is synonymous with wanting someone new. (And I am not implying >anything >about the people in the current election). > >Alan > >At 21/07/2013 02:34 PM, ><mailto:toml@communisphere.com>toml(a)communisphere.com wrote: >Alan, > >What I am trying to say is that incumbents will better know and trust a > >known player. Amopholy (sp?), might describe the human response that Option >4 draws upon. There are both good and bad associated with this. Random is >life. > >Best, > >T9m Lowenhaupt > > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list ><mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at ><http://www.naralo.org>http://www.naralo.org <http://www.naralo.org/>>> >------ > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list ><mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at ><http://www.naralo.org>http://www.naralo.org <http://www.naralo.org/> >------ > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list ><mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at ><http://www.naralo.org>http://www.naralo.org <http://www.naralo.org/> >------ > > > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list ><mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at <http://www.naralo.org>http://www.naralo.org >------ > > > > >-- >Dr. Robert Bruen >Cold Rain Labs ><http://coldrain.net/bruen>http://coldrain.net/bruen >+1.802.579.6288 > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list ><mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at <http://www.naralo.org>http://www.naralo.org >------ > > > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto Canada >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56

1 0

Monthly NOMCOM Report
by Glenn McKnight July 23, 2013

July 23, 2013

*NomCom 2013 report card* *Issue date*: August 10, 2013 *NomCom 2013 essentials* *Committee Leadership (Non voting):* *Chair *(chosen by the Board): Yrjö Länsipuro *Associate Chair* (chosen by Chair to assist): Adam Peake *Chair Elect* (chosen by the Board to be 2014 NomCom Chair): Cheryl Langdon-Orr *Committee:* *Voting members*: 5 ALAC; 1 ccNSO; 1 ASO; 1 TLG; 1 IAB; 7 GNSO (RrSG, RySG, NCUC, ISPCP, IPC, CBUC [1 small / 1 large business rep]) *Non voting members*: 1 SSAC, 1 RSSAC *ICANN Staff support*: Olof Nordling (Staff Support Lead), Joette Youkhanna (Staff Support), Jia-Juh Kimoto (Staff Support). *Ongoing work* The 2013 Nominating Committee met at ICANN 47 Durban for the last and weightiest part of its work. Consistent with its drive towards greater transparency, the Committee began the week with an open meeting as part of the Durban ICANN meeting agenda. On Wednesday and Thursday, the Committee launched into two full days of shortlisted candidate interviews before sequestering itself off-site, following the Durban ICANN meeting, to continue the final selection work on Friday and Saturday. This work consisted of detailed discussions of all of the candidates with straw polling in between to bring clarity, followed by voting, to determine the final slate of appointees for the Board, GNSO Council, ccNSO Council and ALAC Council. As a reminder, the 2013 Nom Com was tasked with filling 3 Board of Director seats; 3 ALAC Councillor seats (representing Africa, Asia/Australia/Pacific Islands, and Latin America/Caribbean regions); 2 GNSO Council seats and 2 ccNSO Council seats. The work was arduous, but collegial, and selections were made in a congenial and collaborative manner that brought about a unanimous decision of the 2014 NomCom ICANN Board appointees. According to the NomCom rules, only the voting members of the committee took part in the polling and voting that led to the final slate of appointees that will be presented by the 2013 NomCom. Herewith we submit the 2013 Nom Com's final Report Card. The next, and final, communication from the 2013 Committee will be the final selection announcement. Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight .

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection
by toml＠communisphere.com July 22, 2013

July 22, 2013

Jean, At the IGC we use RFC 3797, which seems to provide suitable randomness. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection From: Jean Polly <netmom(a)gmail.com> Date: Jul 21, 2013 4:55 PM To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> CC: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org I think the election should just be held again. If it comes up as a tie I think we should do the thing that is most transparent. Random isn't transparent, so that is out. If I had to pick one I would go with number four, because it demands the will of at least two people to win. On Jul 20, 2013, at 3:01 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > In thinking about what kind of rule we could create to ensure that we do not have ties, this is what I came up with and it has the support of Evan and Garth (Eduardo was reachable) > > We need to cover the situation of more than the situation where there are more than two candidates, but the immediate situation is not that complex. > > On consultation with a number of people, we came up with four alternatives of what to do if there was a tie in a race for a RALO leaders. > > 1. Random selection. > 2. RALO Chair casts a second vote > 3. ALAC Chair casts a vote > 4. The three ALAC members from North America cast a secret vote, without the option to abstain. > > Option 1 is a common solution and is easy. I could live with this, but I would prefer that we not use random choice to select our leaders. > > Option 2 is probably a good choice for the case of Secretariat, since the Chair will have to work closely with the winner. However, I find it problematic in the case of a Chair election where the incumbent is running again, since that puts the Chair in the position of selecting him/herself. Also, I am uncomfortable with introducing this new process without the candidates knowing about it at the start. > > Option 3 is probably reasonable, but I would prefer that if we go this way, we decide on it on an all-region basis (that is, to have the ALAC Chair intercede in a RALO selection process). > > Option 4 keeps the decision in the region and I find it the most palatable option certainly in the short term. > > Based on comments, I would be happy to draw up an amendment to our operating procedures. > > Alan > > > > At 20/07/2013 02:16 AM, you wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> The election for NARALO Secretariat (candidates: Darlene Thompson and Glenn McKnight) has resulted in a tie vote. >> >> NARALO Operating Principles do not cover this eventuality. At-Large Staff has consulted with available ALAC Members from the region as well as the NARALO Chair on what process to use to address the situation. >> >> The consensus is that the vote for Secretariat should be rerun, but prior to that, NARALO must amend its rules to ensure that on the re-vote, the possibility of a tie in officer selections is addressed. >> >> Regards, >> >> Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC >> E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org><mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >> >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >> ------ > > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------ ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection
by Alan Greenberg July 22, 2013

July 22, 2013

In thinking about what kind of rule we could create to ensure that we do not have ties, this is what I came up with and it has the support of Evan and Garth (Eduardo was reachable) We need to cover the situation of more than the situation where there are more than two candidates, but the immediate situation is not that complex. On consultation with a number of people, we came up with four alternatives of what to do if there was a tie in a race for a RALO leaders. 1. Random selection. 2. RALO Chair casts a second vote 3. ALAC Chair casts a vote 4. The three ALAC members from North America cast a secret vote, without the option to abstain. Option 1 is a common solution and is easy. I could live with this, but I would prefer that we not use random choice to select our leaders. Option 2 is probably a good choice for the case of Secretariat, since the Chair will have to work closely with the winner. However, I find it problematic in the case of a Chair election where the incumbent is running again, since that puts the Chair in the position of selecting him/herself. Also, I am uncomfortable with introducing this new process without the candidates knowing about it at the start. Option 3 is probably reasonable, but I would prefer that if we go this way, we decide on it on an all-region basis (that is, to have the ALAC Chair intercede in a RALO selection process). Option 4 keeps the decision in the region and I find it the most palatable option certainly in the short term. Based on comments, I would be happy to draw up an amendment to our operating procedures. Alan At 20/07/2013 02:16 AM, you wrote: >Dear All, > >The election for NARALO Secretariat (candidates: Darlene Thompson >and Glenn McKnight) has resulted in a tie vote. > >NARALO Operating Principles do not cover this eventuality. At-Large >Staff has consulted with available ALAC Members from the region as >well as the NARALO Chair on what process to use to address the situation. > >The consensus is that the vote for Secretariat should be rerun, but >prior to that, NARALO must amend its rules to ensure that on the >re-vote, the possibility of a tie in officer selections is addressed. > >Regards, > >Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, >Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC >E-mail: >staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org%3cmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>> >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

5 6

Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection
by toml＠communisphere.com July 21, 2013

July 21, 2013

Alan, What I am trying to say is that incumbents will better know and trust a known player. Amopholy (sp?), might describe the human response that Option 4 draws upon. There are both good and bad associated with this. Random is life. Best, T9m Lowenhaupt -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Jul 21, 2013 10:54 AM To: toml(a)communisphere.com CC: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Not sure I really understand the "new visions" issue. That should be more relevant when candidates are being nominated. If we come to a tie, both candidates have a lot of support among the electorate. The three ALAC members are effectively just and odd number of people who are likely readily available, based in the region and not one of the candidates (note that the general case, the rule would have to factor in the case where an ALAC member is one of one of the candidates but that is not of concern in this election). Can you explain how a coin toss or random number generator would factor in new visions?? Alan At 21/07/2013 09:02 AM, toml(a)communisphere.com wrote: >Yes, as Joly guessed I am on vacation, but am mystified by the blank >messages. Here's hoping cell does better. > >My truncated election comment was that option #1 Ramdom was best. >Reason being that #4 woul tend to knock out new visions. > >Best ans sorry for the blanks, > >Tom > > > >------ Original Message -------- >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection >From: "Eduardo Diaz, PE" <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> >Date: Jul 20, 2013 3:23 PM >To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >CC: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >I like option 4. > >-ed > >Please pardon any errors. I am sending this from my IPhone and have >big fingers. > >On Jul 20, 2013, at 9:01 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > In thinking about what kind of rule we could create to ensure > that we do not have ties, this is what I came up with and it has > the support of Evan and Garth (Eduardo was reachable) > > > > We need to cover the situation of more than the situation where > there are more than two candidates, but the immediate situation is > not that complex. > > > > On consultation with a number of people, we came up with four > alternatives of what to do if there was a tie in a race for a RALO leaders. > > > > 1. Random selection. > > 2. RALO Chair casts a second vote > > 3. ALAC Chair casts a vote > > 4. The three ALAC members from North America cast a secret vote, > without the option to abstain. > > > > Option 1 is a common solution and is easy. I could live with > this, but I would prefer that we not use random choice to select our leaders. > > > > Option 2 is probably a good choice for the case of Secretariat, > since the Chair will have to work closely with the winner. However, > I find it problematic in the case of a Chair election where the > incumbent is running again, since that puts the Chair in the > position of selecting him/herself. Also, I am uncomfortable with > introducing this new process without the candidates knowing about > it at the start. > > > > Option 3 is probably reasonable, but I would prefer that if we go > this way, we decide on it on an all-region basis (that is, to have > the ALAC Chair intercede in a RALO selection process). > > > > Option 4 keeps the decision in the region and I find it the most > palatable option certainly in the short term. > > > > Based on comments, I would be happy to draw up an amendment to > our operating procedures. > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > At 20/07/2013 02:16 AM, you wrote: > >> Dear All, > >> > >> The election for NARALO Secretariat (candidates: Darlene > Thompson and Glenn McKnight) has resulted in a tie vote. > >> > >> NARALO Operating Principles do not cover this eventuality. > At-Large Staff has consulted with available ALAC Members from the > region as well as the NARALO Chair on what process to use to > address the situation. > >> > >> The consensus is that the vote for Secretariat should be rerun, > but prior to that, NARALO must amend its rules to ensure that on > the re-vote, the possibility of a tie in officer selections is addressed. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, > Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > >> E-mail: > staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org><mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org><mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>> > >> ------ > >> NA-Discuss mailing list > >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >> > >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > >> ------ > > > > ------ > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > > ------ >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------ ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection
by Alan Greenberg July 21, 2013

July 21, 2013

Not sure I really understand the "new visions" issue. That should be more relevant when candidates are being nominated. If we come to a tie, both candidates have a lot of support among the electorate. The three ALAC members are effectively just and odd number of people who are likely readily available, based in the region and not one of the candidates (note that the general case, the rule would have to factor in the case where an ALAC member is one of one of the candidates but that is not of concern in this election). Can you explain how a coin toss or random number generator would factor in new visions?? Alan At 21/07/2013 09:02 AM, toml(a)communisphere.com wrote: >Yes, as Joly guessed I am on vacation, but am mystified by the blank >messages. Here's hoping cell does better. > >My truncated election comment was that option #1 Ramdom was best. >Reason being that #4 woul tend to knock out new visions. > >Best ans sorry for the blanks, > >Tom > > > >------ Original Message -------- >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection >From: "Eduardo Diaz, PE" <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> >Date: Jul 20, 2013 3:23 PM >To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >CC: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >I like option 4. > >-ed > >Please pardon any errors. I am sending this from my IPhone and have >big fingers. > >On Jul 20, 2013, at 9:01 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > In thinking about what kind of rule we could create to ensure > that we do not have ties, this is what I came up with and it has > the support of Evan and Garth (Eduardo was reachable) > > > > We need to cover the situation of more than the situation where > there are more than two candidates, but the immediate situation is > not that complex. > > > > On consultation with a number of people, we came up with four > alternatives of what to do if there was a tie in a race for a RALO leaders. > > > > 1. Random selection. > > 2. RALO Chair casts a second vote > > 3. ALAC Chair casts a vote > > 4. The three ALAC members from North America cast a secret vote, > without the option to abstain. > > > > Option 1 is a common solution and is easy. I could live with > this, but I would prefer that we not use random choice to select our leaders. > > > > Option 2 is probably a good choice for the case of Secretariat, > since the Chair will have to work closely with the winner. However, > I find it problematic in the case of a Chair election where the > incumbent is running again, since that puts the Chair in the > position of selecting him/herself. Also, I am uncomfortable with > introducing this new process without the candidates knowing about > it at the start. > > > > Option 3 is probably reasonable, but I would prefer that if we go > this way, we decide on it on an all-region basis (that is, to have > the ALAC Chair intercede in a RALO selection process). > > > > Option 4 keeps the decision in the region and I find it the most > palatable option certainly in the short term. > > > > Based on comments, I would be happy to draw up an amendment to > our operating procedures. > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > At 20/07/2013 02:16 AM, you wrote: > >> Dear All, > >> > >> The election for NARALO Secretariat (candidates: Darlene > Thompson and Glenn McKnight) has resulted in a tie vote. > >> > >> NARALO Operating Principles do not cover this eventuality. > At-Large Staff has consulted with available ALAC Members from the > region as well as the NARALO Chair on what process to use to > address the situation. > >> > >> The consensus is that the vote for Secretariat should be rerun, > but prior to that, NARALO must amend its rules to ensure that on > the re-vote, the possibility of a tie in officer selections is addressed. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, > Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > >> E-mail: > staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org><mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>> > >> ------ > >> NA-Discuss mailing list > >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >> > >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > >> ------ > > > > ------ > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > > ------ >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

1 0

Comment on vote tie
by Thomas Lowenhaupt July 21, 2013

July 21, 2013

4 4

Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection
by toml＠communisphere.com July 21, 2013

July 21, 2013

Yes, as Joly guessed I am on vacation, but am mystified by the blank messages. Here's hoping cell does better. My truncated election comment was that option #1 Ramdom was best. Reason being that #4 woul tend to knock out new visions. Best ans sorry for the blanks, Tom ------ Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection From: "Eduardo Diaz, PE" <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> Date: Jul 20, 2013 3:23 PM To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> CC: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org I like option 4. -ed Please pardon any errors. I am sending this from my IPhone and have big fingers. On Jul 20, 2013, at 9:01 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > In thinking about what kind of rule we could create to ensure that we do not have ties, this is what I came up with and it has the support of Evan and Garth (Eduardo was reachable) > > We need to cover the situation of more than the situation where there are more than two candidates, but the immediate situation is not that complex. > > On consultation with a number of people, we came up with four alternatives of what to do if there was a tie in a race for a RALO leaders. > > 1. Random selection. > 2. RALO Chair casts a second vote > 3. ALAC Chair casts a vote > 4. The three ALAC members from North America cast a secret vote, without the option to abstain. > > Option 1 is a common solution and is easy. I could live with this, but I would prefer that we not use random choice to select our leaders. > > Option 2 is probably a good choice for the case of Secretariat, since the Chair will have to work closely with the winner. However, I find it problematic in the case of a Chair election where the incumbent is running again, since that puts the Chair in the position of selecting him/herself. Also, I am uncomfortable with introducing this new process without the candidates knowing about it at the start. > > Option 3 is probably reasonable, but I would prefer that if we go this way, we decide on it on an all-region basis (that is, to have the ALAC Chair intercede in a RALO selection process). > > Option 4 keeps the decision in the region and I find it the most palatable option certainly in the short term. > > Based on comments, I would be happy to draw up an amendment to our operating procedures. > > Alan > > > > At 20/07/2013 02:16 AM, you wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> The election for NARALO Secretariat (candidates: Darlene Thompson and Glenn McKnight) has resulted in a tie vote. >> >> NARALO Operating Principles do not cover this eventuality. At-Large Staff has consulted with available ALAC Members from the region as well as the NARALO Chair on what process to use to address the situation. >> >> The consensus is that the vote for Secretariat should be rerun, but prior to that, NARALO must amend its rules to ensure that on the re-vote, the possibility of a tie in officer selections is addressed. >> >> Regards, >> >> Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC >> E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org><mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >> >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >> ------ > > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------ ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] NOMCOM Completion
by Alan Greenberg July 21, 2013

July 21, 2013

Thanks for all the work, Glenn, Alan At 21/07/2013 04:51 AM, Glenn McKnight wrote: >Hi All > >We wrapped up the NOMCOM 2013. > >It's been two years for me and the position is term limited We have >selected a great slate of people for Directors, gNSO,ccNSO and ALAC. > >We had 15 members in this year's council selecting from a large than normal >set of SOI's > >It's now Day 13 for me in Durban and it started off with my involvement >with the 1st African School of Internet Governance in Durban with 35 >participants from across Africa, put on by APC and the training was done by >the usual suspects ie. Bill Drake, Avri, and Wolfgang. > >Lots of video has been shot of the sessions and it will be posted on the >NCUC website which has a video section. > >The DNS and Africa event followed this event along with the AFRALO > Showcase. Again each of the speeches have been video taped but they are >not yet posted since AFRALO doesn't have it's own site or facebook page. > >Lots of more sessions were recorded and available upon request. A > discussion on where to host the pictures and video needs to be addressed. > >Good luck to Louis as the new representative > >A full August report will be available at our next call > >G > > >Glenn McKnight >mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com >skype gmcknight >twitter gmcknight >. >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

1 0