Re: [NA-Discuss] Unaffiliated member voting (was Re: NARALO Voting Result ...)
Danny Younger wrote:
Evan, thank you for placing this matter on the next Agenda. On top of everything else, I am concerned by voting irregularities (such as the vote by a long-defunct ALS that is given as much weight as the collective vote of the unaffiliated).
The issue of waking up (or eventually purging) non-participating members (both ALS and individual) is certainly one we will inevitably deal with. Given the youth of NARALO I thought it reasonable that we allow some time to pass before dealing with it, and concentrate on growth and being more welcoming rather than looking for ways to contract. But if NARALO believes the issue is more pressing than I do, we are certainly capable of debating it sooner.
I would be pleased to hear your arguments as to why your vote is of greater value (weight) than Beau's vote or my vote or Jean's vote or Wendy's vote.
The short answer is that it's not "my" vote, it's CLUE's. And CLUE -- a membership organisation in which I participate -- entrusts me to do the right thing, but holds me accountable and is free to remove me as its representative at any time. (Besides, given Wendy's role on the Board and Beau's role in ALAC, I would hardly say that my own voice carries more weight than theirs.) This issue was discussed extensively (and intensely) at the time NARALO was formed. As you are well aware, NARALO is the only region within ICANN that affords *any* status to individuals unaffiliated to an ALS. The balance we achieved was, IMO, reasonable, given the desire of ICANN to grown a network of ALSs.
Looking forward to a robust discussion.
Given all that is on our plate policy-wise, it would be my preference NOT to burn time and personal cycles revisiting our core principles at this point. What I want to do is to nail down a formal voting process that implements the intent of the ROP... not to dissect the ROP itself. It is notable that this issue is only being raised now, more than two years since NARALO was formed. Since NARALO started we have whenever possible operated on consensus rather than formal vote, and when determining consensus all voices have been equal. The views of participating individuals are clearly more reflected in the results of our consensus decisions than those of non-participating ALSs. Indeed, I would further point out that in this specific case, the BigPulse poll was only *advice*; the ultimate decision of what to send to ALAC was done by a consensus in which you most certainly were an equal participant. I certainly hope that unaffiliated members don't believe that they have been treated like second-class citizens during discussions or consensus-building. If that is the case then I will do what I can to rectify this. - Evan
That does accurately reflect my feelings regarding the actual votes. Although the NARALO may generally operate based on discussion and consensus, when a vote is taken, it should be done with all those who are eligible able to participate. In recent weeks we have had two votes and that was not the case in either. Nor was there any accountability after the fact. And for the record, I am discussing process and not end results. In one case the result was exactly what I had hoped for. Alan At 15/09/2009 10:27 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
I certainly hope that unaffiliated members don't believe that they have been treated like second-class citizens during discussions or consensus-building. If that is the case then I will do what I can to rectify this.
- Evan
I have to agree with Evan here and I certainly don't want to waste a pile of time on our next conference call. This was discussed TO DEATH before NARALO came into existence. I would much rather put my energy into policy rather than process. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:28 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Unaffiliated member voting (was Re: NARALO VotingResult ...) Danny Younger wrote:
Evan, thank you for placing this matter on the next Agenda. On top of everything else, I am concerned by voting irregularities (such as the vote by a long-defunct ALS that is given as much weight as the collective vote of the unaffiliated).
The issue of waking up (or eventually purging) non-participating members (both ALS and individual) is certainly one we will inevitably deal with. Given the youth of NARALO I thought it reasonable that we allow some time to pass before dealing with it, and concentrate on growth and being more welcoming rather than looking for ways to contract. But if NARALO believes the issue is more pressing than I do, we are certainly capable of debating it sooner.
I would be pleased to hear your arguments as to why your vote is of greater value (weight) than Beau's vote or my vote or Jean's vote or Wendy's vote.
The short answer is that it's not "my" vote, it's CLUE's. And CLUE -- a membership organisation in which I participate -- entrusts me to do the right thing, but holds me accountable and is free to remove me as its representative at any time. (Besides, given Wendy's role on the Board and Beau's role in ALAC, I would hardly say that my own voice carries more weight than theirs.) This issue was discussed extensively (and intensely) at the time NARALO was formed. As you are well aware, NARALO is the only region within ICANN that affords *any* status to individuals unaffiliated to an ALS. The balance we achieved was, IMO, reasonable, given the desire of ICANN to grown a network of ALSs.
Looking forward to a robust discussion.
Given all that is on our plate policy-wise, it would be my preference NOT to burn time and personal cycles revisiting our core principles at this point. What I want to do is to nail down a formal voting process that implements the intent of the ROP... not to dissect the ROP itself. It is notable that this issue is only being raised now, more than two years since NARALO was formed. Since NARALO started we have whenever possible operated on consensus rather than formal vote, and when determining consensus all voices have been equal. The views of participating individuals are clearly more reflected in the results of our consensus decisions than those of non-participating ALSs. Indeed, I would further point out that in this specific case, the BigPulse poll was only *advice*; the ultimate decision of what to send to ALAC was done by a consensus in which you most certainly were an equal participant. I certainly hope that unaffiliated members don't believe that they have been treated like second-class citizens during discussions or consensus-building. If that is the case then I will do what I can to rectify this. - Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Darlene, That's an easy comment for you to make as your vote carries more weight that ours under this lousy system. Having been raised in the U.S. I tend to subscribe to the one-man-one-vote principle. I see no merit in organizational entities having the preponderance of the votes in this body when rightfully anyone that shows up to participate in the NARALO should be allowed to vote on an equal basis with their peers. --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> wrote:
From: Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Unaffiliated member voting (was Re: NARALO VotingResult ...) To: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 1:54 PM I have to agree with Evan here and I certainly don't want to waste a pile of time on our next conference call. This was discussed TO DEATH before NARALO came into existence. I would much rather put my energy into policy rather than process.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:28 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Unaffiliated member voting (was Re: NARALO VotingResult ...)
Danny Younger wrote:
Evan, thank you for placing this matter on the next Agenda. On top of everything else, I am concerned by voting irregularities (such as the vote by a long-defunct ALS that is given as much weight as the collective vote of the unaffiliated).
The issue of waking up (or eventually purging) non-participating members (both ALS and individual) is certainly one we will inevitably deal with. Given the youth of NARALO I thought it reasonable that we allow some time to pass before dealing with it, and concentrate on growth and being more welcoming rather than looking for ways to contract. But if NARALO believes the issue is more pressing than I do, we are certainly capable of debating it sooner.
I would be pleased to hear your arguments as to why your vote is of greater value (weight) than Beau's vote or my vote or Jean's vote or Wendy's vote.
The short answer is that it's not "my" vote, it's CLUE's. And CLUE -- a membership organisation in which I participate -- entrusts me to do the right thing, but holds me accountable and is free to remove me as its representative at any time. (Besides, given Wendy's role on the Board and Beau's role in ALAC, I would hardly say that my own voice carries more weight than theirs.)
This issue was discussed extensively (and intensely) at the time NARALO was formed. As you are well aware, NARALO is the only region within ICANN that affords *any* status to individuals unaffiliated to an ALS. The balance we achieved was, IMO, reasonable, given the desire of ICANN to grown a network of ALSs.
Looking forward to a robust discussion.
Given all that is on our plate policy-wise, it would be my preference NOT to burn time and personal cycles revisiting our core principles at this point. What I want to do is to nail down a formal voting process that implements the intent of the ROP... not to dissect the ROP itself.
It is notable that this issue is only being raised now, more than two years since NARALO was formed. Since NARALO started we have whenever possible operated on consensus rather than formal vote, and when determining consensus all voices have been equal. The views of participating individuals are clearly more reflected in the results of our consensus decisions than those of non-participating ALSs. Indeed, I would further point out that in this specific case, the BigPulse poll was only *advice*; the ultimate decision of what to send to ALAC was done by a consensus in which you most certainly were an equal participant.
I certainly hope that unaffiliated members don't believe that they have been treated like second-class citizens during discussions or consensus-building. If that is the case then I will do what I can to rectify this.
- Evan
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Well, then what you are suggesting is a total re-work of the entire RALO system which is entirely out of our scope. My vote DOES carry more weight than an individual's because I am voting for a bunch of people. That is why we made it possible for individuals to vote. Unfortunately, whether you are from the US or not, or what principals you personally subscribe to, this is the system that we have. Which is more that what you will find in any other RALO. So, again, I don't think this should find its way onto our next agenda as its been hashed, rehashed, and multi-hashed enough. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:02 PM To: Evan Leibovitch; NA Discuss; Thompson, Darlene Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Unaffiliated member voting (was Re: NARALO VotingResult ...) Darlene, That's an easy comment for you to make as your vote carries more weight that ours under this lousy system. Having been raised in the U.S. I tend to subscribe to the one-man-one-vote principle. I see no merit in organizational entities having the preponderance of the votes in this body when rightfully anyone that shows up to participate in the NARALO should be allowed to vote on an equal basis with their peers. --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> wrote:
From: Thompson, Darlene <DThompson@GOV.NU.CA> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Unaffiliated member voting (was Re: NARALO VotingResult ...) To: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan@telly.org>, "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 1:54 PM I have to agree with Evan here and I certainly don't want to waste a pile of time on our next conference call. This was discussed TO DEATH before NARALO came into existence. I would much rather put my energy into policy rather than process.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 10:28 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Unaffiliated member voting (was Re: NARALO VotingResult ...)
Danny Younger wrote:
Evan, thank you for placing this matter on the next Agenda. On top of everything else, I am concerned by voting irregularities (such as the vote by a long-defunct ALS that is given as much weight as the collective vote of the unaffiliated).
The issue of waking up (or eventually purging) non-participating members (both ALS and individual) is certainly one we will inevitably deal with. Given the youth of NARALO I thought it reasonable that we allow some time to pass before dealing with it, and concentrate on growth and being more welcoming rather than looking for ways to contract. But if NARALO believes the issue is more pressing than I do, we are certainly capable of debating it sooner.
I would be pleased to hear your arguments as to why your vote is of greater value (weight) than Beau's vote or my vote or Jean's vote or Wendy's vote.
The short answer is that it's not "my" vote, it's CLUE's. And CLUE -- a membership organisation in which I participate -- entrusts me to do the right thing, but holds me accountable and is free to remove me as its representative at any time. (Besides, given Wendy's role on the Board and Beau's role in ALAC, I would hardly say that my own voice carries more weight than theirs.)
This issue was discussed extensively (and intensely) at the time NARALO was formed. As you are well aware, NARALO is the only region within ICANN that affords *any* status to individuals unaffiliated to an ALS. The balance we achieved was, IMO, reasonable, given the desire of ICANN to grown a network of ALSs.
Looking forward to a robust discussion.
Given all that is on our plate policy-wise, it would be my preference NOT to burn time and personal cycles revisiting our core principles at this point. What I want to do is to nail down a formal voting process that implements the intent of the ROP... not to dissect the ROP itself.
It is notable that this issue is only being raised now, more than two years since NARALO was formed. Since NARALO started we have whenever possible operated on consensus rather than formal vote, and when determining consensus all voices have been equal. The views of participating individuals are clearly more reflected in the results of our consensus decisions than those of non-participating ALSs. Indeed, I would further point out that in this specific case, the BigPulse poll was only *advice*; the ultimate decision of what to send to ALAC was done by a consensus in which you most certainly were an equal participant.
I certainly hope that unaffiliated members don't believe that they have been treated like second-class citizens during discussions or consensus-building. If that is the case then I will do what I can to rectify this.
- Evan
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
- In advance of the voting period, Staff will announce the names of all
unaffiliated members eligible to participate (just as the list of ALSs is announced). This list, collectively, will be the Unaffiliated Member Caucus (UMC) and have the same voting rights as a NARALO ALS
Did I miss this? -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
And asking again, where was the list of eligible voters ALS or otherwise, announced? j On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com> wrote:
- In advance of the voting period, Staff will announce the names of all
unaffiliated members eligible to participate (just as the list of ALSs is announced). This list, collectively, will be the Unaffiliated Member Caucus (UMC) and have the same voting rights as a NARALO ALS
Did I miss this?
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie wrote:
And asking again, where was the list of eligible voters ALS or otherwise, announced?
In an email sent by ICANN staff to this mailing list on August 21, with the subject line "[NA-Discuss] NARALO ALS Representative list for upcoming online polls". It was repeated, along with instructions for unaffiliated members, in a message from Staff August 24 with the subject "[NA-Discuss] NOW OPEN: NARALO Vote on Recommended North American NomCom Delegate". - Evan
For the record I'm thrilled I'm still considered active enough <grin> to vote. And Evan's proposed voting process sounds like what we have discussed before, haven't we? Thaks for the reminder. I remember in interim ALAC how we struggled with how to define "active"-- we had several members who never participated in anything, not the listserv, not the phone calls, and not the meetings. It held things up. But in Naralo, didn't we address this back in the bylaws discussions?? Re talking about it all right now--I think the expression "we have bigger fish to fry" could be appropriate here. We've got some momentum going on some bigger complaints against ICANN and imagine if we all stood together in that..... :-) we can always pick up the process parts later, but again, just my opinion, others may disagree. At 1:54 PM -0400 9/15/09, Thompson, Darlene recently said:
I have to agree with Evan here and I certainly don't want to waste a pile of time on our next conference call. This was discussed TO DEATH before NARALO came into existence. I would much rather put my energy into policy rather than process.
D
Darlene A. Thompson
Jean Armour Polly wrote:
Re talking about it all right now--I think the expression "we have bigger fish to fry" could be appropriate here. We've got some momentum going on some bigger complaints against ICANN and imagine if we all stood together in that..... :-) we can always pick up the process parts later, but again, just my opinion, others may disagree.
I surely don't disagree. Thanks for the injection of common sense and a reminder that sniping at each other takes our eyes off the real targets. - Evan
participants (6)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jean Armour Polly -
Joly MacFie -
Thompson, Darlene