Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection
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@gmail.com> Date: Jul 21, 2013 4:55 PM To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> CC: na-discuss@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@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 ------
It isn't the randomness I am uneasy about, it is the transparency of the randomness run. If it happens as part of an open meeting, with many witnesses, I am ok with it. On Jul 21, 2013, at 6:23 PM, toml@communisphere.com wrote:
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@gmail.com> Date: Jul 21, 2013 4:55 PM To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> CC: na-discuss@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@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 ------
participants (2)
-
Jean Polly -
toml＠communisphere.com