Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection
In thinking about what kind of rule we could create to ensure that we do not have ties, this is what I came up with and it has the support of Evan and Garth (Eduardo was reachable) We need to cover the situation of more than the situation where there are more than two candidates, but the immediate situation is not that complex. On consultation with a number of people, we came up with four alternatives of what to do if there was a tie in a race for a RALO leaders. 1. Random selection. 2. RALO Chair casts a second vote 3. ALAC Chair casts a vote 4. The three ALAC members from North America cast a secret vote, without the option to abstain. Option 1 is a common solution and is easy. I could live with this, but I would prefer that we not use random choice to select our leaders. Option 2 is probably a good choice for the case of Secretariat, since the Chair will have to work closely with the winner. However, I find it problematic in the case of a Chair election where the incumbent is running again, since that puts the Chair in the position of selecting him/herself. Also, I am uncomfortable with introducing this new process without the candidates knowing about it at the start. Option 3 is probably reasonable, but I would prefer that if we go this way, we decide on it on an all-region basis (that is, to have the ALAC Chair intercede in a RALO selection process). Option 4 keeps the decision in the region and I find it the most palatable option certainly in the short term. Based on comments, I would be happy to draw up an amendment to our operating procedures. Alan At 20/07/2013 02:16 AM, you wrote:
Dear All,
The election for NARALO Secretariat (candidates: Darlene Thompson and Glenn McKnight) has resulted in a tie vote.
NARALO Operating Principles do not cover this eventuality. At-Large Staff has consulted with available ALAC Members from the region as well as the NARALO Chair on what process to use to address the situation.
The consensus is that the vote for Secretariat should be rerun, but prior to that, NARALO must amend its rules to ensure that on the re-vote, the possibility of a tie in officer selections is addressed.
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org%3cmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>> ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Let's be sure to insert a clause that prevents an incumbent chair running for re-election from making the selection when the chair is a tie. If the chair is outgoing it should not be an issue. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sender: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 03:01:50 To: <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection In thinking about what kind of rule we could create to ensure that we do not have ties, this is what I came up with and it has the support of Evan and Garth (Eduardo was reachable) We need to cover the situation of more than the situation where there are more than two candidates, but the immediate situation is not that complex. On consultation with a number of people, we came up with four alternatives of what to do if there was a tie in a race for a RALO leaders. 1. Random selection. 2. RALO Chair casts a second vote 3. ALAC Chair casts a vote 4. The three ALAC members from North America cast a secret vote, without the option to abstain. Option 1 is a common solution and is easy. I could live with this, but I would prefer that we not use random choice to select our leaders. Option 2 is probably a good choice for the case of Secretariat, since the Chair will have to work closely with the winner. However, I find it problematic in the case of a Chair election where the incumbent is running again, since that puts the Chair in the position of selecting him/herself. Also, I am uncomfortable with introducing this new process without the candidates knowing about it at the start. Option 3 is probably reasonable, but I would prefer that if we go this way, we decide on it on an all-region basis (that is, to have the ALAC Chair intercede in a RALO selection process). Option 4 keeps the decision in the region and I find it the most palatable option certainly in the short term. Based on comments, I would be happy to draw up an amendment to our operating procedures. Alan At 20/07/2013 02:16 AM, you wrote:
Dear All,
The election for NARALO Secretariat (candidates: Darlene Thompson and Glenn McKnight) has resulted in a tie vote.
NARALO Operating Principles do not cover this eventuality. At-Large Staff has consulted with available ALAC Members from the region as well as the NARALO Chair on what process to use to address the situation.
The consensus is that the vote for Secretariat should be rerun, but prior to that, NARALO must amend its rules to ensure that on the re-vote, the possibility of a tie in officer selections is addressed.
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org%3cmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>> ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
I like option 4. -ed Please pardon any errors. I am sending this from my IPhone and have big fingers. On Jul 20, 2013, at 9:01 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
In thinking about what kind of rule we could create to ensure that we do not have ties, this is what I came up with and it has the support of Evan and Garth (Eduardo was reachable)
We need to cover the situation of more than the situation where there are more than two candidates, but the immediate situation is not that complex.
On consultation with a number of people, we came up with four alternatives of what to do if there was a tie in a race for a RALO leaders.
1. Random selection. 2. RALO Chair casts a second vote 3. ALAC Chair casts a vote 4. The three ALAC members from North America cast a secret vote, without the option to abstain.
Option 1 is a common solution and is easy. I could live with this, but I would prefer that we not use random choice to select our leaders.
Option 2 is probably a good choice for the case of Secretariat, since the Chair will have to work closely with the winner. However, I find it problematic in the case of a Chair election where the incumbent is running again, since that puts the Chair in the position of selecting him/herself. Also, I am uncomfortable with introducing this new process without the candidates knowing about it at the start.
Option 3 is probably reasonable, but I would prefer that if we go this way, we decide on it on an all-region basis (that is, to have the ALAC Chair intercede in a RALO selection process).
Option 4 keeps the decision in the region and I find it the most palatable option certainly in the short term.
Based on comments, I would be happy to draw up an amendment to our operating procedures.
Alan
At 20/07/2013 02:16 AM, you wrote:
Dear All,
The election for NARALO Secretariat (candidates: Darlene Thompson and Glenn McKnight) has resulted in a tie vote.
NARALO Operating Principles do not cover this eventuality. At-Large Staff has consulted with available ALAC Members from the region as well as the NARALO Chair on what process to use to address the situation.
The consensus is that the vote for Secretariat should be rerun, but prior to that, NARALO must amend its rules to ensure that on the re-vote, the possibility of a tie in officer selections is addressed.
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org%3cmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>> ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
in the case of a tie vote, the options to break the tie should be as close as possible to the electorate. In my opinion, I would have rerun the election and ask - the electorate chose, in a ranked fashion - who should be elected - in the case of a tie, who folks give their vote to. regards Robert On 2013-07-20, at 3:22 PM, Eduardo Diaz, PE wrote:
I like option 4.
-ed
Please pardon any errors. I am sending this from my IPhone and have big fingers.
On Jul 20, 2013, at 9:01 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
In thinking about what kind of rule we could create to ensure that we do not have ties, this is what I came up with and it has the support of Evan and Garth (Eduardo was reachable)
We need to cover the situation of more than the situation where there are more than two candidates, but the immediate situation is not that complex.
On consultation with a number of people, we came up with four alternatives of what to do if there was a tie in a race for a RALO leaders.
1. Random selection. 2. RALO Chair casts a second vote 3. ALAC Chair casts a vote 4. The three ALAC members from North America cast a secret vote, without the option to abstain.
Option 1 is a common solution and is easy. I could live with this, but I would prefer that we not use random choice to select our leaders.
Option 2 is probably a good choice for the case of Secretariat, since the Chair will have to work closely with the winner. However, I find it problematic in the case of a Chair election where the incumbent is running again, since that puts the Chair in the position of selecting him/herself. Also, I am uncomfortable with introducing this new process without the candidates knowing about it at the start.
Option 3 is probably reasonable, but I would prefer that if we go this way, we decide on it on an all-region basis (that is, to have the ALAC Chair intercede in a RALO selection process).
Option 4 keeps the decision in the region and I find it the most palatable option certainly in the short term.
Based on comments, I would be happy to draw up an amendment to our operating procedures.
Alan
At 20/07/2013 02:16 AM, you wrote:
Dear All,
The election for NARALO Secretariat (candidates: Darlene Thompson and Glenn McKnight) has resulted in a tie vote.
NARALO Operating Principles do not cover this eventuality. At-Large Staff has consulted with available ALAC Members from the region as well as the NARALO Chair on what process to use to address the situation.
The consensus is that the vote for Secretariat should be rerun, but prior to that, NARALO must amend its rules to ensure that on the re-vote, the possibility of a tie in officer selections is addressed.
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org%3cmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>> ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
With two candidates, unless someone take the unusual position that they prefer candidate A but in the case of a tie, candidate B should get it, this suggestion would result in the tie-breaking decision being a tie. Alan At 22/07/2013 11:52 AM, Robert Guerra wrote:
in the case of a tie vote, the options to break the tie should be as close as possible to the electorate.
In my opinion, I would have rerun the election and ask
- the electorate chose, in a ranked fashion - who should be elected - in the case of a tie, who folks give their vote to.
regards
Robert
On 2013-07-20, at 3:22 PM, Eduardo Diaz, PE wrote:
I like option 4.
-ed
Please pardon any errors. I am sending this from my IPhone and have big fingers.
On Jul 20, 2013, at 9:01 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
In thinking about what kind of rule we could create to ensure that we do not have ties, this is what I came up with and it has the support of Evan and Garth (Eduardo was reachable)
We need to cover the situation of more than the situation where there are more than two candidates, but the immediate situation is not that complex.
On consultation with a number of people, we came up with four alternatives of what to do if there was a tie in a race for a RALO leaders.
1. Random selection. 2. RALO Chair casts a second vote 3. ALAC Chair casts a vote 4. The three ALAC members from North America cast a secret vote, without the option to abstain.
Option 1 is a common solution and is easy. I could live with this, but I would prefer that we not use random choice to select our leaders.
Option 2 is probably a good choice for the case of Secretariat, since the Chair will have to work closely with the winner. However, I find it problematic in the case of a Chair election where the incumbent is running again, since that puts the Chair in the position of selecting him/herself. Also, I am uncomfortable with introducing this new process without the candidates knowing about it at the start.
Option 3 is probably reasonable, but I would prefer that if we go this way, we decide on it on an all-region basis (that is, to have the ALAC Chair intercede in a RALO selection process).
Option 4 keeps the decision in the region and I find it the most palatable option certainly in the short term.
Based on comments, I would be happy to draw up an amendment to our operating procedures.
Alan
At 20/07/2013 02:16 AM, you wrote:
Dear All,
The election for NARALO Secretariat (candidates: Darlene Thompson and Glenn McKnight) has resulted in a tie vote.
NARALO Operating Principles do not cover this eventuality. At-Large Staff has consulted with available ALAC Members from the region as well as the NARALO Chair on what process to use to address the situation.
The consensus is that the vote for Secretariat should be rerun, but prior to that, NARALO must amend its rules to ensure that on the re-vote, the possibility of a tie in officer selections is addressed.
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org%3cmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>> ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
I assume that since the first round resulted in tie, the second round will lead to different result. If it doesn't suggest we go with the least subjective - that being a random process to select a winner. Barbara Roseman <barbara.roseman@icann.org> has developed a script to automate the process. Get in touch with her if need be.. regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra@privaterra.org On 2013-07-22, at 12:00 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
With two candidates, unless someone take the unusual position that they prefer candidate A but in the case of a tie, candidate B should get it, this suggestion would result in the tie-breaking decision being a tie.
Alan
-- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra@privaterra.org
I think the election should just be held again. If it comes up as a tie I think we should do the thing that is most transparent. Random isn't transparent, so that is out. If I had to pick one I would go with number four, because it demands the will of at least two people to win. On Jul 20, 2013, at 3:01 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
In thinking about what kind of rule we could create to ensure that we do not have ties, this is what I came up with and it has the support of Evan and Garth (Eduardo was reachable)
We need to cover the situation of more than the situation where there are more than two candidates, but the immediate situation is not that complex.
On consultation with a number of people, we came up with four alternatives of what to do if there was a tie in a race for a RALO leaders.
1. Random selection. 2. RALO Chair casts a second vote 3. ALAC Chair casts a vote 4. The three ALAC members from North America cast a secret vote, without the option to abstain.
Option 1 is a common solution and is easy. I could live with this, but I would prefer that we not use random choice to select our leaders.
Option 2 is probably a good choice for the case of Secretariat, since the Chair will have to work closely with the winner. However, I find it problematic in the case of a Chair election where the incumbent is running again, since that puts the Chair in the position of selecting him/herself. Also, I am uncomfortable with introducing this new process without the candidates knowing about it at the start.
Option 3 is probably reasonable, but I would prefer that if we go this way, we decide on it on an all-region basis (that is, to have the ALAC Chair intercede in a RALO selection process).
Option 4 keeps the decision in the region and I find it the most palatable option certainly in the short term.
Based on comments, I would be happy to draw up an amendment to our operating procedures.
Alan
At 20/07/2013 02:16 AM, you wrote:
Dear All,
The election for NARALO Secretariat (candidates: Darlene Thompson and Glenn McKnight) has resulted in a tie vote.
NARALO Operating Principles do not cover this eventuality. At-Large Staff has consulted with available ALAC Members from the region as well as the NARALO Chair on what process to use to address the situation.
The consensus is that the vote for Secretariat should be rerun, but prior to that, NARALO must amend its rules to ensure that on the re-vote, the possibility of a tie in officer selections is addressed.
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org%3cmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>> ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
participants (5)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Eduardo Diaz, PE -
gbruen＠knujon.com -
Jean Polly -
Robert Guerra