- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO Operating Procedures
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 9, 2013

Aug. 9, 2013

Evan, were there ever cases where there were more candidates than slots and consensus was used? Alan At 08/08/2013 04:34 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 6 August 2013 10:15, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >At 06/08/2013 08:31 AM, Thompson, Darlene wrote: > > >#12 refers to ALAC members being chosen by a rough consensus >process. This has never been done. It has always been done by a >voting process. The rough consensus wording should rather be used >for routine decisions. > > >I am happy to make such a change if there is such a will. > > >I wouldn't say never. > >NARALO's first two non-ALAC reps -- Robert and Beau - were chosen by >consensus, no vote was ever taken. I believe that Gareth's selection >as well as my first, were also done that way. > >I would prefer to keep the option so to allow for the flexibility. > >- Evan

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] 2nd revision of NARALO Operating Procedures
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 8, 2013

Aug. 8, 2013

At 08/08/2013 03:01 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote: >I recommend to add Spanish as a third language in #4 and add at the >end (as it was suggested before) the words "as appropriate" so it >will read as follows: > >"4. The NARALO will be multilingual from its inception. Public >documents will be produced in English, French and Spanish as appropriate." I dropped the "as appropriate" along with the suggestion to add Spanish as not being absolutely essential to this revision. In fact, for the next full rewrite which we need to do soon, the section on language needs to be altered to make sure it is in line with ICANN and ALAC policy. So my preference is to side-step it now and get on with the revision that are necessary to fix particular problems. >In #17, delete the word "submitted" after the words "...an affirmation...". Good catch! Thanks. >And just for curiosity: in #13 where it says that the Chair will >break the tie: Will the fact that there is a tie be known to >everyone before/after the Chair casts its vote? We have to make sure >that only the chair knows about the tie otherwise everyone will know >the final Chair's vote. Agreed. But since that is not a need for this year (where we have already selected an EXCELLENT ALAC Member) let's presume we will either fix it in time for next year, or the Chair and staff will have the good sense to do it anyway. Alan >-ed > > >On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Based on comments, I have made a few more changes. These are shown in BLUE. > >12/13. Normal procedure in the ALAC is now to hold secret votes for >elections/selections that are contended. The changes to 12 and 13 >allow the NARALO to do this as well. This is in fact how we have >been operating, so the change just ratifies our existing behavior. > >16. Correct and error that said a suspended ALS could regain their >active status by voting, but voting is the thing they are not >allowed to do if inactive. Also added a provision whereby NARALO can >request the the ALAC de-certify an essentially defunct ALS. The ALAC >would still need to conduct due diligence, so the procedures in >NARALO do not need to be exceedingly detailed. > >Last call for additional issues? > >Alan >------ >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 >------ > > > > >-- >NOTICE: This email may contain information which is confidential >and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of >the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you >must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have >received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete >this message immediately.

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] 2nd revision of NARALO Operating Procedures
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 8, 2013

Aug. 8, 2013

At 08/08/2013 02:12 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Doesn't the second sentence of #13 contradict #19? No, as 13 is only for ALAC seats and 19 is for Chair/Secretariat. >In any case I still prefer the original form of #13; if you like add >the word "secret" before "vote" but I'm not sure what is broken in >this specific spot that needs fixing. That NARALO has used consensus >more often than other regions is IMO a feature, not a bug, and >needless synchronization with other regions for its own sake is not >a worthwhile goal. As noted, I can live with the old form. The new version just explicitly gives the Chair the ability to make a judgement call and stay within the rules. >I thought were were going for a minimal set of changes to >accommodate problems specifically raised by the current voting >situation; anything beyond that should be off the table right now. Someone raised the issue and I responded. Happy to back it out. It is a bit past what we NEED to do now. Alan > > > >On 8 August 2013 12:48, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Based on comments, I have made a few more changes. These are shown in BLUE. > >12/13. Normal procedure in the ALAC is now to hold secret votes for >elections/selections that are contended. The changes to 12 and 13 >allow the NARALO to do this as well. This is in fact how we have >been operating, so the change just ratifies our existing behavior. > >16. Correct and error that said a suspended ALS could regain their >active status by voting, but voting is the thing they are not >allowed to do if inactive. Also added a provision whereby NARALO can >request the the ALAC de-certify an essentially defunct ALS. The ALAC >would still need to conduct due diligence, so the procedures in >NARALO do not need to be exceedingly detailed. > >Last call for additional issues? > >Alan >------ >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

Re: [NA-Discuss] 2nd revision of NARALO Operating Procedures
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 8, 2013

Aug. 8, 2013

Yes. At 08/08/2013 12:52 PM, gbruen(a)knujon.com wrote: >Do you mean "contested"? > >Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > >-----Original Message----- >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Sender: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 12:48:15 >To: NA-Discuss<na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [NA-Discuss] 2nd revision of NARALO Operating Procedures > >Based on comments, I have made a few more changes. These are shown in BLUE. > >12/13. Normal procedure in the ALAC is now to hold secret votes for >elections/selections that are contended. The changes to 12 and 13 >allow the NARALO to do this as well. This is in fact how we have been >operating, so the change just ratifies our existing behavior. > >16. Correct and error that said a suspended ALS could regain their >active status by voting, but voting is the thing they are not allowed >to do if inactive. Also added a provision whereby NARALO can request >the the ALAC de-certify an essentially defunct ALS. The ALAC would >still need to conduct due diligence, so the procedures in NARALO do >not need to be exceedingly detailed. > >Last call for additional issues? > >Alan

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] 2nd revision of NARALO Operating Procedures- WIKI PAGE CREATED TO CONSOLIDATE COMMENTS
by Silvia Vivanco Aug. 8, 2013

Aug. 8, 2013

Dear Alan et all, Staff has created the following WIKI page " NARALO ROP Review". I have saved the first draft. The page can be used as discussion space and as a tool to consolidate comments. There is a link to the Page on the NARALO main page. https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/NARALO+ROP+Review++2013 Thank you! Kind regards, Silvia Silvia Vivanco Manager, At-Large Regional Affairs Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (202) 570-7119 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 Cell/Mobile: +1 (202) 735-7011 -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 12:48 PM To: NA-Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] 2nd revision of NARALO Operating Procedures Based on comments, I have made a few more changes. These are shown in BLUE. 12/13. Normal procedure in the ALAC is now to hold secret votes for elections/selections that are contended. The changes to 12 and 13 allow the NARALO to do this as well. This is in fact how we have been operating, so the change just ratifies our existing behavior. 16. Correct and error that said a suspended ALS could regain their active status by voting, but voting is the thing they are not allowed to do if inactive. Also added a provision whereby NARALO can request the the ALAC de-certify an essentially defunct ALS. The ALAC would still need to conduct due diligence, so the procedures in NARALO do not need to be exceedingly detailed. Last call for additional issues? Alan

1 0

Monday's Meeting/Teleconference
by Garth Bruen Aug. 8, 2013

Aug. 8, 2013

All, Due to the on-going election and pending changes to our ROP, the agenda for our monthly call will be focused on moving these concerns forward. I apologize for the disruption of our normal activities but these are obviously critical issues. I will be sending out a brief of the ROP changes. I suggest everyone become familiar with them. -Garth ------------------------------------- Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com 617-947-3805 http://www.knujon.com Chair of ICANN At-Large North America (naralo.org) http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 The Death of the Internet: http://astore.amazon.com/knujocom-20/detail/1118062418 Blog: http://www.digitalcitizensalliance.org/cac/alliance/blog.aspx?ident=garth Twitter: @Knujon

2 2

Cross-RALO Policy Development Activities and Processes Workspace
by ICANN At-Large Staff Aug. 6, 2013

Aug. 6, 2013

Dear All, Please note that the Cross-RALO Policy Development Activities and Processes Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/X09-Ag> has been created. This workspace contains the various Policy and Process issues discussed by the RALOs during the ICANN Durban Meeting. 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>

1 0

Draft NARALO Operating Procedures
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 6, 2013

Aug. 6, 2013

I offer the following draft of the reviser NARALO Operating Procedures In summary, I have changed: - a number of things we noted before as problems but never fixed - the tie-breaking which triggered this revision - other important things I found along the way. All of our documents are BADLY in need of revision. This is NOT that effort, but I have tried to fix the really serious issues and particularly ones that have caused us problems in the past. In detail by section number: 7. Adding the possibility for a shared Secretariat, which already implied in section 8 by the "person(s)". As far as I can find, we have no "language requirements", so I deleted the reference to it. 9. That is primarily where the ALAC Member responsibilities now reside (or pointed to by RoP). 11. Removal of the term "Statement of Interest" which now has another meaning. Nominations is what this process is referred to in ALAC docs, and in fact, that is what actually happens except in the rare self-nomination case. 12. Goes with above. 15. Currently, only a rep of a true ALS can vote to alter the Operating Procedures. The representative of unaffiliated members was accidentally omitted. This fixes that. 16. Since we say that selections should largely be by consensus, this fits better than just counting votes which might not happen. 17. Again removing a mis-used "Statement of Interest" and making the process clear. I also made it clear how you lose unaffiliated membership. I removed what is essentially an implementation issue that did not belong in the rules and added a tie-breaking rule patterned on that in 13. 19. The new rule for tie-breaking in a Chair or Secretariat election. 20. To counteract section 12.9 of the Procedure for Meetings which says we vote like LAC, with weighted voting balancing countries. 21. Fix the many discrepancies among documents. Comments? Alan

4 3

Re: [NA-Discuss] Building consensus on dealing with the election tie
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 4, 2013

Aug. 4, 2013

Thanks Darlene. There is no question that we need a obust set of rules that can handle situations such as this. The only immediate question, as I outlined in my earlier note, is do we need them for THIS election. Alan At 27/07/2013 03:18 PM, Thompson, Darlene wrote: >Thank you Bob, > >Along this line, when NARALO was still new and nobody really knew >what they were doing, Luc and I did just fine sharing >responsibilities. We e-mailed back and forth a lot and just decided >between us who would do what. It was pretty easy. > >NARALO has now grown a lot, as have the people within it. Each >person brings their own talents and skills to the table. I think >that Glenn and my talents are diverse enough that we should be able >to divvy up the workload and actually be able to grow more >initiatives for the region - each taking the lead in what they >prefer or where their skills are. I am quite flexible and would, of >course, do everything I can to make it work - as I always do. I do >not think that we need the job to be "codified" as it is constantly >changing as per the needs of the group. > >Having said that, I would also be in favour of the tie-breaker >solution offered by the 3 ALAC members but my preference will always >be to try to grow and expand the talent pool in the region. > >D > >Darlene A. Thompson >CAP Administrator >N-CAP/Department of Education >P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >Phone: (867) 975-5631 >Fax: (867) 975-5610 >dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca >________________________________________ >From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Bob Bruen >[bruen(a)coldrain.net] >Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:24 PM >To: Thomas Lowenhaupt >Cc: NARALO Discussion List >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Building consensus on dealing with the election tie > >Hi, > >Darlene has been at this job for long enough to know what to do. I expect >that she and Glenn could figure out how to share the responsibilities, >then let us know. They are both reasonable adults. If there is a problem, >I am sure the Chair could be helpful in settling it. > > > --bob > >On Sat, 27 Jul 2013, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > > > I think the shared responsibility can work. But we must define specific > > responsibilities and metrics for each co-secretary. These metrics will be > > quite helpful when the next election comes along, at least in > evaluating the > > performance of the cos. > > > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > > > > > > > On 7/27/2013 11:37 AM, Skuce, Allan wrote: > >> I still prefer #3. What an opportunity to grow, lead by example, and deal > >> with the great workload. Cheers, Allan > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Dharma Dailey > >> <dharma.dailey(a)gmail.com>wrote: > >> > >>> Have we reached clarity on whether folks feel the job can be shared? The > >>> last message from Glenn, I recall, was along the lines of "looking into > >>> it." It might be easier on all parties if some of the details were > >>> discussed before hand so no one is surprised re: who is doing what. > >>> > >>> Dharma > >>> > >>> > >>> On Jul 26, 2013, at 6:44 PM, "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson1(a)GOV.NU.CA> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> > >>>> I would like to encourage all NARALO members to consider the options > >>> that Evan has posited below and respond to same. Without consensus we > >>> cannot move forward on this issue. > >>>> Thank you for your time on this! > >>>> > >>>> D > >>>> > >>>> Darlene A. Thompson > >>>> CAP Administrator > >>>> N-CAP/Department of Education > >>>> P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 > >>>> Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 > >>>> Phone: (867) 975-5631 > >>>> Fax: (867) 975-5610 > >>>> dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca > >>>> ________________________________________ > >>>> From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [ > >>> na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Evan > Leibovitch [ > >>> evan(a)telly.org] > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 4:44 PM > >>>> To: NARALO Discussion List > >>>> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Building consensus on dealing with the > election tie > >>>> > >>>> Hello all, > >>>> > >>>> I would like to suggest conducting a poll of NARALO members on the best > >>> way > >>>> to deal with the tie for Secretariat resulting from the recently-held > >>> vote. > >>>> While we need to revise our regulations regarding tie-breaking, we have > >>> an > >>>> immediate need to resolve the current situation before the next ICANN > >>>> meeting. > >>>> > >>>> Based on discussions I have heard to date, there are three paths to > >>>> resolving this that have received some interest: > >>>> > >>>> 1. Random tie-break > >>>> The votes for ALSs and unaffiliated members is re-held, and the rules > >>>> are modified. If another tie results, the tie is broken by a random > >>> method, > >>>> supervised by at least two non-candidate members and/or At-Large > >>>> staff. > >>>> > >>>> 2. Tie-break by NA-Region ALAC members > >>>> The votes for ALSs and unaffiliated members is re-held and he rules > >>>> are > >>>> modified. If another tie results, the tie is broken by a consensus > >>> achieved > >>>> in private by the three ALAC members for North America (Alan, Eduardo > >>> and > >>>> myself). Since there are three of us, no deadlock is allowed there > >>>> > >>>> 3. Shared Secretariat > >>>> No new election is held, and NARALO declares both Darlene > and Glenn as > >>>> co-Secretariats. While there is no precedent for this in > NARALO, there > >>> is > >>>> elsewhere in ICANN At-Large (both co-Chair and co-Secretariats have > >>> been > >>>> done in other regions). The two would alternate travel to ICANN > >>> meetings > >>>> (though both would naturally be at the Summit in London). In the case > >>> that > >>>> any of the North American At-Large leadership cannot attend a meeting > >>>> (Chair, travel-designated secretariat or ALAC member), the > >>> "non-travelling" > >>>> secretariat member would automatically be designated to take that > >>> travel > >>>> allocation. The rules may still be modified in case of future ties, > >>>> but > >>>> such action is not required immediately. > >>>> > >>>> So I am proposing that, in advance of the next NARALO call, we could do > >>> an > >>>> informal poll of members (by Bigpulse or Doodle) to gain a sense of > >>>> preferences between these options that may help guide a regional > >>> consensus > >>>> on the August call. > >>>> > >>>> Is this a workable plan? Are the options above a valid representation of > >>>> the ones discussed? (There are some other tie-break methods I have > >>>> eliminated because of lack of support to date). > >>>> > >>>> I admit that when I started thinking about the tie I had not given any > >>>> thought to the shared secretariat idea, but it has grown on me since. > >>> There > >>>> is a significant amount of work to do, and it would be IMO a shame to > >>> force > >>>> an all-or-nothing tiebreak on two people with both popular > support and an > >>>> eagerness to do the job. > >>>> > >>>> - Evan > >>>> ------ > >>>> NA-Discuss mailing list > >>>> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.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 > > ------ > > > >-- >Dr. Robert Bruen >Cold Rain Labs >http://coldrain.net/bruen >+1.802.579.6288 > >------ >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 >------

10 14

Building consensus on dealing with the election tie
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 3, 2013

Aug. 3, 2013

Hello all, I would like to suggest conducting a poll of NARALO members on the best way to deal with the tie for Secretariat resulting from the recently-held vote. While we need to revise our regulations regarding tie-breaking, we have an immediate need to resolve the current situation before the next ICANN meeting. Based on discussions I have heard to date, there are three paths to resolving this that have received some interest: 1. Random tie-break The votes for ALSs and unaffiliated members is re-held, and the rules are modified. If another tie results, the tie is broken by a random method, supervised by at least two non-candidate members and/or At-Large staff. 2. Tie-break by NA-Region ALAC members The votes for ALSs and unaffiliated members is re-held and he rules are modified. If another tie results, the tie is broken by a consensus achieved in private by the three ALAC members for North America (Alan, Eduardo and myself). Since there are three of us, no deadlock is allowed there 3. Shared Secretariat No new election is held, and NARALO declares both Darlene and Glenn as co-Secretariats. While there is no precedent for this in NARALO, there is elsewhere in ICANN At-Large (both co-Chair and co-Secretariats have been done in other regions). The two would alternate travel to ICANN meetings (though both would naturally be at the Summit in London). In the case that any of the North American At-Large leadership cannot attend a meeting (Chair, travel-designated secretariat or ALAC member), the "non-travelling" secretariat member would automatically be designated to take that travel allocation. The rules may still be modified in case of future ties, but such action is not required immediately. So I am proposing that, in advance of the next NARALO call, we could do an informal poll of members (by Bigpulse or Doodle) to gain a sense of preferences between these options that may help guide a regional consensus on the August call. Is this a workable plan? Are the options above a valid representation of the ones discussed? (There are some other tie-break methods I have eliminated because of lack of support to date). I admit that when I started thinking about the tie I had not given any thought to the shared secretariat idea, but it has grown on me since. There is a significant amount of work to do, and it would be IMO a shame to force an all-or-nothing tiebreak on two people with both popular support and an eagerness to do the job. - Evan

13 21