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
Actually, there is a precedent in NARALO for the shared Secretariat position. This was in Puerto Rico where the Chair and Secretariat were first decided. It was there decided that the Secretariat could be shared and it was shared for a time between myself and a gentleman from ISOC Quebec who's name eludes me right now. He retired some months later so the job fell to me. I encouraged this model because of the amount of work involved and it worked well while it lasted. 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 ------
On 24 July 2013 17:07, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson1@gov.nu.ca> wrote:
Actually, there is a precedent in NARALO for the shared Secretariat position. This was in Puerto Rico where the Chair and Secretariat were first decided. It was there decided that the Secretariat could be shared and it was shared for a time between myself and a gentleman from ISOC Quebec who's name eludes me right now. He retired some months later so the job fell to me.
At the time of NARALO formation, the ISOC Québec representative was Luc Faubert. - Evan
Thank you!!! That was driving me nuts that I couldn't remember his name. 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: evanleibovitch@gmail.com [evanleibovitch@gmail.com] on behalf of Evan Leibovitch [evan@telly.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 5:09 PM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: NARALO Discussion List Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Building consensus on dealing with the election tie On 24 July 2013 17:07, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson1@gov.nu.ca<mailto:DThompson1@gov.nu.ca>> wrote: Actually, there is a precedent in NARALO for the shared Secretariat position. This was in Puerto Rico where the Chair and Secretariat were first decided. It was there decided that the Secretariat could be shared and it was shared for a time between myself and a gentleman from ISOC Quebec who's name eludes me right now. He retired some months later so the job fell to me. At the time of NARALO formation, the ISOC Québec representative was Luc Faubert. - Evan
Confirmed! Louis Houle Président La Société Internet du Québec (ISOC Québec) Louis.Houle@isocquebec.org Le 2013-07-24 17:09, Evan Leibovitch a écrit :
On 24 July 2013 17:07, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson1@gov.nu.ca> wrote:
Actually, there is a precedent in NARALO for the shared Secretariat position. This was in Puerto Rico where the Chair and Secretariat were first decided. It was there decided that the Secretariat could be shared and it was shared for a time between myself and a gentleman from ISOC Quebec who's name eludes me right now. He retired some months later so the job fell to me.
At the time of NARALO formation, the ISOC Québec representative was Luc Faubert.
- 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 ------
I suggest a litle variation: Let both secretariat work in conjunction while the rules are changed and a new vote is taken. If there ia another tie, then we can do as Evan has suggested. -ed On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
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 ------
-- *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.
On the issue of working together. This is an interesting take on the solution. I have never seen such a solution before but it has merit, especially if it repeats another tie My problem is the job duties since they are not codified and documented and it will require work to delegate which tasks are assigned to whom. I spoke with Garth briefly on this and he will be following up as well. Glenn Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn@gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight . On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>wrote:
I suggest a litle variation:
Let both secretariat work in conjunction while the rules are changed and a new vote is taken. If there ia another tie, then we can do as Evan has suggested.
-ed
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
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 ------
-- *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. ------ 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 ------
Good point , coach! Louis Houle Président La Société Internet du Québec (ISOC Québec) Louis.Houle@isocquebec.org Le 2013-07-26 08:32, Glenn McKnight a écrit :
On the issue of working together. This is an interesting take on the solution. I have never seen such a solution before but it has merit, especially if it repeats another tie
My problem is the job duties since they are not codified and documented and it will require work to delegate which tasks are assigned to whom.
I spoke with Garth briefly on this and he will be following up as well.
Glenn
Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn@gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight .
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:39 AM, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com>wrote:
I suggest a litle variation:
Let both secretariat work in conjunction while the rules are changed and a new vote is taken. If there ia another tie, then we can do as Evan has suggested.
-ed
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
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 ------
-- *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. ------ 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 ------
Actually, Eduardo, I will still be Secretariat until after the next ICANN meeting as the term does not end until then so this transition period will not be necessary. I certainly hope that this is all settle by then anyways! 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 Eduardo Diaz [eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 2:39 AM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: NARALO Discussion List Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Building consensus on dealing with the election tie I suggest a litle variation: Let both secretariat work in conjunction while the rules are changed and a new vote is taken. If there ia another tie, then we can do as Evan has suggested. -ed On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
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 ------
-- *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. ------ 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 ------
On 26 July 2013 02:39, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:
I suggest a litle variation:
Let both secretariat work in conjunction while the rules are changed and a new vote is taken. If there ia another tie, then we can do as Evan has suggested.
But what I have suggested is three possible options, not a single solution. None of the responses yet, except for those of the candidates themselves being acceptable with sharing, has indicated a preference. - Evan
If I didn't answer clearly, here is my point after reading Darlene's email: Doodle or BigPulse, I agree with your proposal with the 3 options. It sounds fair. I like to think that, since we already voted and have a tie, it's a good compromise. Louis Houle Président La Société Internet du Québec (ISOC Québec) Louis.Houle@isocquebec.org Le 2013-07-26 16:03, Evan Leibovitch a écrit :
On 26 July 2013 02:39, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera@gmail.com> wrote:
I suggest a litle variation:
Let both secretariat work in conjunction while the rules are changed and a new vote is taken. If there ia another tie, then we can do as Evan has suggested.
But what I have suggested is three possible options, not a single solution. None of the responses yet, except for those of the candidates themselves being acceptable with sharing, has indicated a preference.
- 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 ------
+1 Louis Houle Président La Société Internet du Québec (ISOC Québec) Louis.Houle@isocquebec.org Le 2013-07-26 02:39, Eduardo Diaz a écrit :
I suggest a litle variation:
Let both secretariat work in conjunction while the rules are changed and a new vote is taken. If there ia another tie, then we can do as Evan has suggested.
-ed
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
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 ------
Note that the new Secretariat does not take office until November 21st, so we do not need to worry about an interim solution just yet. Alan At 02/08/2013 05:55 PM, Houle Louis wrote:
+1
Louis Houle Président La Société Internet du Québec (ISOC Québec) Louis.Houle@isocquebec.org
Le 2013-07-26 02:39, Eduardo Diaz a écrit :
I suggest a litle variation:
Let both secretariat work in conjunction while the rules are changed and a new vote is taken. If there ia another tie, then we can do as Evan has suggested.
-ed
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
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 ------
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 ------
I am in favour of the poll. Or should we just specify our preference here? Kerry Brown ISOC Canada Chapter On 2013-07-26 3:44 PM, "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson1@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@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 ------
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@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@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 ------
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@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@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@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
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
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@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@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@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
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@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@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@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
------ 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 ------
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288
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@gov.nu.ca ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Bob Bruen [bruen@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@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@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@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
------ 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 ------
-- Dr. Robert Bruen Cold Rain Labs http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288 ------ 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 ------
My personal preference is for Option 2 - Tie-break by NA-Region ALAC members. At the same time, I believe that serious consideration needs to be given to Glenn's concerns about the fact that the duties are not documented. Gordon Chillcott On Fri, 2013-07-26 at 22:44 +0000, Thompson, Darlene 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@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 ------
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 ------
participants (13)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Bob Bruen -
Dharma Dailey -
Eduardo Diaz -
Evan Leibovitch -
Glenn McKnight -
Gordon Chillcott -
Houle Louis -
Kerry Brown -
RJ Glass -
Skuce, Allan -
Thomas Lowenhaupt -
Thompson, Darlene