To add my two cents, I would suggest a second vote. Option 1 as proposed by Evan   Regards, Murray McKercher NARALO Un-affiliated ________________________________ From: "na-discuss-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org> To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 8:00:03 AM Subject: NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 81, Issue 38 Send NA-Discuss mailing list submissions to     na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit     https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to     na-discuss-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org You can reach the person managing the list at     na-discuss-owner@atlarge-lists.icann.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of NA-Discuss digest..." Today's Topics:   1. Re:  Building consensus on dealing with the election tie       (RJ Glass) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 20:20:31 -0700 (PDT) From: RJ Glass <jipshida2@yahoo.com> To: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson1@GOV.NU.CA>,    Evan Leibovitch     <evan@telly.org>,    NARALO Discussion List     <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Building consensus on dealing with the     election tie Message-ID:     <1374981631.13081.YahooMailNeo@web164001.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 My opinion, Vote on the alternatives. Then revisit the issue to a formal change in the procedures.

________________________________ From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson1@GOV.NU.CA> To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>; NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Building consensus on dealing with the election tie

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@gov.nu.ca ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Evan Leibovitch [evan@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@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@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss End of NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 81, Issue 38 ******************************************