Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection

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@mcgill.ca>
Date: Jul 21, 2013 10:54 AM
To: toml@communisphere.com
CC: na-discuss@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@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@gmail.com> >Date: Jul 20, 2013 3:23 PM >To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> >CC: na-discuss@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@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@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org><mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org><mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.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 > > > > 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 Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

toml＠communisphere.com

tags

participants (1)