Re: [NA-Discuss] Formation Schedule - are we on track ?
To follow on from my previous intervention in answer to this question, the definition of 'present and voting' which is internationally recognised is to count those who vote yes or no, not abstentions. On 15/05/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
There is no recognised voting system in the international world which I am aware of which counts abstentions as votes. This is also true in the corporate world.
As I understood the predetermined process, we were seeking consensus, not vote, and 70% of those present, not a majority of voters.
--Wendy
As background, I can make these statements not only based upon 20 years of working with international organisations and participating in treaty making conferences, but also because I have recently read the authoritative work on rules of procedure of international conferences and standing committees of international organisations, and gone through the UNGA rules, the UN Model Rules, and the ECOSOC rules in order to come up with draft rules of procedure for At-Large meetings.
It would be unwise to go against all established precendents and count abstentions as votes. If you were to do that, it would be very easy to argue that the vote counting method was not valid.
This is also logical - if you think about it, counting abstentions as votes means that you are basically counting an abstention as a 'no' vote. If people meant to say 'No', they would have voted that way. Indeed, a number of voters in this election have specifically said that they were abstaining because they didn't have time to properly analyse the situation and didn't feel comfortable voting either way. This sensible approach should not be used to turn their vote into a 'no' vote.
On 15/05/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@seltzer.com> wrote:
Mr. Robert Guerra wrote:
Wendy:
I believe Luc posted a message with the results of the OP vote. let me find it..
From: "Luc Faubert" <LFaubert@conceptum.ca> Date: May 2, 2007 2:49:49 AM EDT (CA) To: "Bret Fausett" <bfausett@internet.law.pro>, "All Accredited At Large Structures ((ALS)) in the North AmericanRegion" <na- als@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [NA-ALS] Voting Procedural Correction
Here's a sheet with the current results for the vote on the OP.
SUMMARY Yes: 14 No: 5 Abstentions: 3 Didn't vote: 2
Not sure how to treat the abstentons & non voters. So, i'll assume i can just add the yea's and nea's..Total # of votes -19 (14+5). Doing the math - Votes in favor = 73 %, opposed 26%.
I'd count abstentions in the total, we didn't reach 70% of the total, and thus fail.
If we can't get 70% for the OP, they shouldn't be Operative.
--Wendy
Our criteria for approving by rough consensus was set at 70%. as such we - seem to have adopted the OP by rough consensus.
regards,
Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377
On 15-May-07, at 9:10 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Robert Guerra wrote:
I thought it would be a good idea to post a copy of the Formation Schedule found on our page on icannwiki.
are we on track, on schedule? Two key questions - was the MoU adopted by rough consensus, and if so has it been received by icann legal for review? As far as I know, no. I never even saw the results of the vote on the Operating Principles. Were those adopted?
But I don't think that deliberate speed is a problem.
--Wendy
regards
Robert
-- http://www.icannwiki.org/The_North_American_Regional_At- Large_Organization
[snipped]
Formation Schedule
2007.04.20: Certified ALSes and individual users name their 2 voting representatives forming the General Assembly (must be entered at NARALO Contacts) 2007.04.27: Members approve final version of NARALO Operating Principles (Draft) 2007.05.04: Members vote for Chair and Secretariat of NARALO 2007.05.11: Members approve final version of Memorandum of Understanding between NARALO and ICANN (Draft) 2007.05.14: MOU is sent to ICANN legal for approval 2007.05.14: The Chair opens the 30-day period for submission of Statements of Interest for the election of our 2 ALAC representatives 2007.05.25: ICANN legal approves MOU 2007.05.28: ICANN opens 21-day public comment period for NARALO MOU 2007.06.14: The Chair closes the 30-day period for submission of Statements of Interest for the election of our 2 ALAC representatives 2007.06.18: ICANN closes 21-day public comment period for NARALO MOU 2007.06.21: Members select 2 NARALO ALAC representatives 2007.06.25: ICANN and ALSes sign the MOU and seating of ALAC representatives in San Juan, Puerto Rico ICANN meeting
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
--- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
--- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/
-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
On 15-May-07, at 10:21 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
To follow on from my previous intervention in answer to this question, the definition of 'present and voting' which is internationally recognised is to count those who vote yes or no, not abstentions.
The definition on wikipedia supports Nick's view - which I agree with as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention Abstention is a term in election procedure for when a participant in a vote either does not go to vote (on election day) or, in parliamentary procedure, is present during the vote, but does not cast a ballot. Abstention must be contrasted with "blank vote", in which a participant in a vote cast a deliberately unlegitimate vote (drawing pictures on the ballot, etc.) or in which he simply casts a blank vote: a "blank (or white) voter" has voted, although his vote may be considered a spoilt vote, depending on each legislation, while an abstentionnist hasn't voted. Both forms (abstention and blank vote) may or may not, depending on the circumstances, be considered as protest vote. An abstention may be used to indicate the voting individual's ambivalence about the measure, or mild disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition. A person may also abstain when they do not feel adequately informed about the issue at hand, or has not participated in relevant discussion. In parliamentary procedure, a member may be required to abstain in the case of a real or perceived conflict of interest. Abstentions do not count in tallying the vote; when members abstain, they are in effect only attending the meeting to aid in constituting a quorum. White votes, however, may be counted in the total of votes, depending on the legislation. In some countries, some activist groups advocates the counting of white votes and plain abstentions in the total result of vote as a way of displaying the percentage of people opposed to all parliamentary options.
To answer your question Robert, on whether we are on track with regards to the schedule, the answer is no. We're not on track. We're way off track. The vote for the OP did not pass. Even without counting explicit abstentions, which I think should be the way to count, we did not achieve 70% of the votes. We needed 15 votes (21 x 70% = 14,7) and got 14. We need more than rough consensus to adopt the OP. As article 15 of our OP states, we need 70% of the active ALS to adopt them (we're counting the 2 unaffiliated delegates as one ALS). At this point, 1 voting delegate from CAUCE Canada (Michael Parker) and one from Web405 (Dennis Wilen) have not voted. It's not clear to me whether their vote should count if they vote now. It's been 2 weeks since the vote. Feeling it wasn't up to me to decide on the next steps, I was hoping for our interim Chair to decide on the way forward. Bret, can you help us out of this? Also, the 5 people who voted "no" mentioned it was because they wanted to pursue discussions on the bicameral model. Yet it's been 2 weeks since the vote and I haven't seen any exchanges on the matter go by on the list, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mr. Robert Guerra Sent: 15 mai 2007 11:14 To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Formation Schedule - are we on track ?
On 15-May-07, at 10:21 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
To follow on from my previous intervention in answer to this question, the definition of 'present and voting' which is internationally recognised is to count those who vote yes or no, not abstentions.
The definition on wikipedia supports Nick's view - which I agree with as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention
Abstention is a term in election procedure for when a participant in a vote either does not go to vote (on election day) or, in parliamentary procedure, is present during the vote, but does not cast a ballot. Abstention must be contrasted with "blank vote", in which a participant in a vote cast a deliberately unlegitimate vote (drawing pictures on the ballot, etc.) or in which he simply casts a blank vote: a "blank (or white) voter" has voted, although his vote may be considered a spoilt vote, depending on each legislation, while an abstentionnist hasn't voted. Both forms (abstention and blank vote) may or may not, depending on the circumstances, be considered as protest vote.
An abstention may be used to indicate the voting individual's ambivalence about the measure, or mild disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition. A person may also abstain when they do not feel adequately informed about the issue at hand, or has not participated in relevant discussion. In parliamentary procedure, a member may be required to abstain in the case of a real or perceived conflict of interest.
Abstentions do not count in tallying the vote; when members abstain, they are in effect only attending the meeting to aid in constituting a quorum. White votes, however, may be counted in the total of votes, depending on the legislation. In some countries, some activist groups advocates the counting of white votes and plain abstentions in the total result of vote as a way of displaying the percentage of people opposed to all parliamentary options.
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
Hmmmmm... I am wondering if we need to make provision to have an interim vice-chair in case the chair gets too busy or something. I, too, have noticed that we have seen two weeks of silence from our chair. Or, maybe, if the chair is traveling or something, he/she can nominate somebody in their place. When we are on a strict time-line such as this (which is easily do-able if we just keep at it) we really cannot afford long delays such as this. Just an idea... D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 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 Luc Faubert Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 12:53 PM To: Mr. Robert Guerra; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Formation Schedule - are we on track ? To answer your question Robert, on whether we are on track with regards to the schedule, the answer is no. We're not on track. We're way off track. The vote for the OP did not pass. Even without counting explicit abstentions, which I think should be the way to count, we did not achieve 70% of the votes. We needed 15 votes (21 x 70% = 14,7) and got 14. We need more than rough consensus to adopt the OP. As article 15 of our OP states, we need 70% of the active ALS to adopt them (we're counting the 2 unaffiliated delegates as one ALS). At this point, 1 voting delegate from CAUCE Canada (Michael Parker) and one from Web405 (Dennis Wilen) have not voted. It's not clear to me whether their vote should count if they vote now. It's been 2 weeks since the vote. Feeling it wasn't up to me to decide on the next steps, I was hoping for our interim Chair to decide on the way forward. Bret, can you help us out of this? Also, the 5 people who voted "no" mentioned it was because they wanted to pursue discussions on the bicameral model. Yet it's been 2 weeks since the vote and I haven't seen any exchanges on the matter go by on the list, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mr. Robert Guerra Sent: 15 mai 2007 11:14 To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Formation Schedule - are we on track ?
On 15-May-07, at 10:21 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
To follow on from my previous intervention in answer to this question, the definition of 'present and voting' which is internationally recognised is to count those who vote yes or no, not abstentions.
The definition on wikipedia supports Nick's view - which I agree with as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention
Abstention is a term in election procedure for when a participant in a vote either does not go to vote (on election day) or, in parliamentary procedure, is present during the vote, but does not cast a ballot. Abstention must be contrasted with "blank vote", in which a participant in a vote cast a deliberately unlegitimate vote (drawing pictures on the ballot, etc.) or in which he simply casts a blank vote: a "blank (or white) voter" has voted, although his vote may be considered a spoilt vote, depending on each legislation, while an abstentionnist hasn't voted. Both forms (abstention and blank vote) may or may not, depending on the circumstances, be considered as protest vote.
An abstention may be used to indicate the voting individual's ambivalence about the measure, or mild disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition. A person may also abstain when they do not feel adequately informed about the issue at hand, or has not participated in relevant discussion. In parliamentary procedure, a member may be required to abstain in the case of a real or perceived conflict of interest.
Abstentions do not count in tallying the vote; when members abstain, they are in effect only attending the meeting to aid in constituting a quorum. White votes, however, may be counted in the total of votes, depending on the legislation. In some countries, some activist groups advocates the counting of white votes and plain abstentions in the total result of vote as a way of displaying the percentage of people opposed to all parliamentary options.
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
Darlene: let me suggest three names for vice chair - yourself, evan and luc regards Robert On 15-May-07, at 2:27 PM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Hmmmmm...
I am wondering if we need to make provision to have an interim vice-chair in case the chair gets too busy or something. I, too, have noticed that we have seen two weeks of silence from our chair. Or, maybe, if the chair is traveling or something, he/she can nominate somebody in their place.
When we are on a strict time-line such as this (which is easily do- able if we just keep at it) we really cannot afford long delays such as this.
Just an idea...
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 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 Luc Faubert Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 12:53 PM To: Mr. Robert Guerra; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Formation Schedule - are we on track ?
To answer your question Robert, on whether we are on track with regards to the schedule, the answer is no. We're not on track. We're way off track.
The vote for the OP did not pass. Even without counting explicit abstentions, which I think should be the way to count, we did not achieve 70% of the votes. We needed 15 votes (21 x 70% = 14,7) and got 14. We need more than rough consensus to adopt the OP. As article 15 of our OP states, we need 70% of the active ALS to adopt them (we're counting the 2 unaffiliated delegates as one ALS).
At this point, 1 voting delegate from CAUCE Canada (Michael Parker) and one from Web405 (Dennis Wilen) have not voted. It's not clear to me whether their vote should count if they vote now.
It's been 2 weeks since the vote. Feeling it wasn't up to me to decide on the next steps, I was hoping for our interim Chair to decide on the way forward. Bret, can you help us out of this?
Also, the 5 people who voted "no" mentioned it was because they wanted to pursue discussions on the bicameral model. Yet it's been 2 weeks since the vote and I haven't seen any exchanges on the matter go by on the list,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mr. Robert Guerra Sent: 15 mai 2007 11:14 To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Formation Schedule - are we on track ?
On 15-May-07, at 10:21 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
To follow on from my previous intervention in answer to this question, the definition of 'present and voting' which is internationally recognised is to count those who vote yes or no, not abstentions.
The definition on wikipedia supports Nick's view - which I agree with as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention
Abstention is a term in election procedure for when a participant in a vote either does not go to vote (on election day) or, in parliamentary procedure, is present during the vote, but does not cast a ballot. Abstention must be contrasted with "blank vote", in which a participant in a vote cast a deliberately unlegitimate vote (drawing pictures on the ballot, etc.) or in which he simply casts a blank vote: a "blank (or white) voter" has voted, although his vote may be considered a spoilt vote, depending on each legislation, while an abstentionnist hasn't voted. Both forms (abstention and blank vote) may or may not, depending on the circumstances, be considered as protest vote.
An abstention may be used to indicate the voting individual's ambivalence about the measure, or mild disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition. A person may also abstain when they do not feel adequately informed about the issue at hand, or has not participated in relevant discussion. In parliamentary procedure, a member may be required to abstain in the case of a real or perceived conflict of interest.
Abstentions do not count in tallying the vote; when members abstain, they are in effect only attending the meeting to aid in constituting a quorum. White votes, however, may be counted in the total of votes, depending on the legislation. In some countries, some activist groups advocates the counting of white votes and plain abstentions in the total result of vote as a way of displaying the percentage of people opposed to all parliamentary options.
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
Huh. And I was going to suggest YOU, Evan and Luc! :) Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists@privaterra.info] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 3:04 PM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Formation Schedule - are we on track ? Darlene: let me suggest three names for vice chair - yourself, evan and luc regards Robert On 15-May-07, at 2:27 PM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Hmmmmm...
I am wondering if we need to make provision to have an interim vice-chair in case the chair gets too busy or something. I, too, have noticed that we have seen two weeks of silence from our chair. Or, maybe, if the chair is traveling or something, he/she can nominate somebody in their place.
When we are on a strict time-line such as this (which is easily do- able if we just keep at it) we really cannot afford long delays such as this.
Just an idea...
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 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 Luc Faubert Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 12:53 PM To: Mr. Robert Guerra; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Formation Schedule - are we on track ?
To answer your question Robert, on whether we are on track with regards to the schedule, the answer is no. We're not on track. We're way off track.
The vote for the OP did not pass. Even without counting explicit abstentions, which I think should be the way to count, we did not achieve 70% of the votes. We needed 15 votes (21 x 70% = 14,7) and got 14. We need more than rough consensus to adopt the OP. As article 15 of our OP states, we need 70% of the active ALS to adopt them (we're counting the 2 unaffiliated delegates as one ALS).
At this point, 1 voting delegate from CAUCE Canada (Michael Parker) and one from Web405 (Dennis Wilen) have not voted. It's not clear to me whether their vote should count if they vote now.
It's been 2 weeks since the vote. Feeling it wasn't up to me to decide on the next steps, I was hoping for our interim Chair to decide on the way forward. Bret, can you help us out of this?
Also, the 5 people who voted "no" mentioned it was because they wanted to pursue discussions on the bicameral model. Yet it's been 2 weeks since the vote and I haven't seen any exchanges on the matter go by on the list,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mr. Robert Guerra Sent: 15 mai 2007 11:14 To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Formation Schedule - are we on track ?
On 15-May-07, at 10:21 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
To follow on from my previous intervention in answer to this question, the definition of 'present and voting' which is internationally recognised is to count those who vote yes or no, not abstentions.
The definition on wikipedia supports Nick's view - which I agree with as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention
Abstention is a term in election procedure for when a participant in a vote either does not go to vote (on election day) or, in parliamentary procedure, is present during the vote, but does not cast a ballot. Abstention must be contrasted with "blank vote", in which a participant in a vote cast a deliberately unlegitimate vote (drawing pictures on the ballot, etc.) or in which he simply casts a blank vote: a "blank (or white) voter" has voted, although his vote may be considered a spoilt vote, depending on each legislation, while an abstentionnist hasn't voted. Both forms (abstention and blank vote) may or may not, depending on the circumstances, be considered as protest vote.
An abstention may be used to indicate the voting individual's ambivalence about the measure, or mild disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition. A person may also abstain when they do not feel adequately informed about the issue at hand, or has not participated in relevant discussion. In parliamentary procedure, a member may be required to abstain in the case of a real or perceived conflict of interest.
Abstentions do not count in tallying the vote; when members abstain, they are in effect only attending the meeting to aid in constituting a quorum. White votes, however, may be counted in the total of votes, depending on the legislation. In some countries, some activist groups advocates the counting of white votes and plain abstentions in the total result of vote as a way of displaying the percentage of people opposed to all parliamentary options.
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Huh. And I was going to suggest YOU, Evan and Luc! :)
I'm flattered, thanks for the consideration. My apologies for being essentially off the list for about a week. Gerry Singleton, CLUE's second NARALO representative and a good friend of mine, (he was involved in the conference call but had to leave early) died suddenly last week. The funeral was on Friday, along with the usual newspaper announcements it was a Facebook event. So I go away for a week, and return after the requisite introspection, and everything-in-its-place contemplation that often happens during times like these, only to return to the cacophony of this list and wonder is this little corner of the world is ever going to get anything done. I haven't totally caught up, but have read enough to respond to a number of different issues. Nick is right in that abstentions never count in a vote -- they indicate that the voters choose not to make a choice, and that's certainly reasonable here considering the great absense of substance in many of these "discussions". We have people voting against _any_ RALO (and campaigning with newcomers to vote no!) until they get their pet causes dealt with -- exactly as they wish -- in the OP at the outset. Apparently, a promise by all to address the concept of representation by individuals once we're started -- along with Randy's group practically _existing_ for the purpose of offering voice to the non-aligned -- isn't enough, so this is now clearly a matter of deliberate obstruction. And we won't even get into the issue of unreasonable legaleze in the MOU. Frankly, I'm not sure I would make a good chair because I'm rapidly losing what patience I had before for those who once had a point, but that point is shrinking fast. There's growing evidence in these threads that the obstructionists are not at all interested in "individual" voices besides their own, and "diversity" is a weapon except when its results don't suit them. The blogs mentioned, which bemoan the RALO structure, have achieved a strange uninitentional pathos. In "reporting" the problems of the European RALO, the complaint is that the "right" ALAC representative wasn't chosen, without for a moment pondering the qualifications of those who _were_. Again, the language of that of obstruction -- if it can't work "our" way, it can't work at all, and we won't even let it try. Sorry for the rant, folks, but freshly coming from the reflection of a friend's funeral only highlights the DELIBERATE dysfunction that some folks here bounce between causing and complaining about. If folks spent a fraction of the energy used to moan about inaction on RegisterFly related issues to actually raise the issues for discussion and help educate the rest of us, we'd actually be able to accomplish the actual advisory purpose many of us came here to do. Instead, complainers come across as simply wanting to destabalize without actually offering anything of value. Look, if you think the RALO system is doomed to fail, or that NARALO is useless, please get out and let the rest of us have a go at it. As much as I appreciate the advice and history of the people who have experience at other ICANN advisory efforts, the defeatist baggage simply isn't worth it. It will be easy enough for the RALO model to fail without active efforts to vandalize it from within. I apologize for the tone of this; I am simply perplexed at the realization that there are folks here who have no interest in making this work, yet have enough time on their hands to hang around and impede those who do. - Evan
Evan, Please accept my sympathies on your loss. We barely had a chance to hear from Gerry, never mind get to know him. I am so sorry for the suddenness of this - it must have been a total shock to you. Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:21 PM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: Thompson, Darlene Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Formation Schedule - are we on track ? Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Huh. And I was going to suggest YOU, Evan and Luc! :)
I'm flattered, thanks for the consideration. My apologies for being essentially off the list for about a week. Gerry Singleton, CLUE's second NARALO representative and a good friend of mine, (he was involved in the conference call but had to leave early) died suddenly last week. The funeral was on Friday, along with the usual newspaper announcements it was a Facebook event. So I go away for a week, and return after the requisite introspection, and everything-in-its-place contemplation that often happens during times like these, only to return to the cacophony of this list and wonder is this little corner of the world is ever going to get anything done. I haven't totally caught up, but have read enough to respond to a number of different issues. Nick is right in that abstentions never count in a vote -- they indicate that the voters choose not to make a choice, and that's certainly reasonable here considering the great absense of substance in many of these "discussions". We have people voting against _any_ RALO (and campaigning with newcomers to vote no!) until they get their pet causes dealt with -- exactly as they wish -- in the OP at the outset. Apparently, a promise by all to address the concept of representation by individuals once we're started -- along with Randy's group practically _existing_ for the purpose of offering voice to the non-aligned -- isn't enough, so this is now clearly a matter of deliberate obstruction. And we won't even get into the issue of unreasonable legaleze in the MOU. Frankly, I'm not sure I would make a good chair because I'm rapidly losing what patience I had before for those who once had a point, but that point is shrinking fast. There's growing evidence in these threads that the obstructionists are not at all interested in "individual" voices besides their own, and "diversity" is a weapon except when its results don't suit them. The blogs mentioned, which bemoan the RALO structure, have achieved a strange uninitentional pathos. In "reporting" the problems of the European RALO, the complaint is that the "right" ALAC representative wasn't chosen, without for a moment pondering the qualifications of those who _were_. Again, the language of that of obstruction -- if it can't work "our" way, it can't work at all, and we won't even let it try. Sorry for the rant, folks, but freshly coming from the reflection of a friend's funeral only highlights the DELIBERATE dysfunction that some folks here bounce between causing and complaining about. If folks spent a fraction of the energy used to moan about inaction on RegisterFly related issues to actually raise the issues for discussion and help educate the rest of us, we'd actually be able to accomplish the actual advisory purpose many of us came here to do. Instead, complainers come across as simply wanting to destabalize without actually offering anything of value. Look, if you think the RALO system is doomed to fail, or that NARALO is useless, please get out and let the rest of us have a go at it. As much as I appreciate the advice and history of the people who have experience at other ICANN advisory efforts, the defeatist baggage simply isn't worth it. It will be easy enough for the RALO model to fail without active efforts to vandalize it from within. I apologize for the tone of this; I am simply perplexed at the realization that there are folks here who have no interest in making this work, yet have enough time on their hands to hang around and impede those who do. - Evan
I am in complete agreement with everything that Evan just said below (both in spirit and in wording). Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:21 PM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: Thompson, Darlene Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Formation Schedule - are we on track ? Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Huh. And I was going to suggest YOU, Evan and Luc! :)
I'm flattered, thanks for the consideration. My apologies for being essentially off the list for about a week. Gerry Singleton, CLUE's second NARALO representative and a good friend of mine, (he was involved in the conference call but had to leave early) died suddenly last week. The funeral was on Friday, along with the usual newspaper announcements it was a Facebook event. So I go away for a week, and return after the requisite introspection, and everything-in-its-place contemplation that often happens during times like these, only to return to the cacophony of this list and wonder is this little corner of the world is ever going to get anything done. I haven't totally caught up, but have read enough to respond to a number of different issues. Nick is right in that abstentions never count in a vote -- they indicate that the voters choose not to make a choice, and that's certainly reasonable here considering the great absense of substance in many of these "discussions". We have people voting against _any_ RALO (and campaigning with newcomers to vote no!) until they get their pet causes dealt with -- exactly as they wish -- in the OP at the outset. Apparently, a promise by all to address the concept of representation by individuals once we're started -- along with Randy's group practically _existing_ for the purpose of offering voice to the non-aligned -- isn't enough, so this is now clearly a matter of deliberate obstruction. And we won't even get into the issue of unreasonable legaleze in the MOU. Frankly, I'm not sure I would make a good chair because I'm rapidly losing what patience I had before for those who once had a point, but that point is shrinking fast. There's growing evidence in these threads that the obstructionists are not at all interested in "individual" voices besides their own, and "diversity" is a weapon except when its results don't suit them. The blogs mentioned, which bemoan the RALO structure, have achieved a strange uninitentional pathos. In "reporting" the problems of the European RALO, the complaint is that the "right" ALAC representative wasn't chosen, without for a moment pondering the qualifications of those who _were_. Again, the language of that of obstruction -- if it can't work "our" way, it can't work at all, and we won't even let it try. Sorry for the rant, folks, but freshly coming from the reflection of a friend's funeral only highlights the DELIBERATE dysfunction that some folks here bounce between causing and complaining about. If folks spent a fraction of the energy used to moan about inaction on RegisterFly related issues to actually raise the issues for discussion and help educate the rest of us, we'd actually be able to accomplish the actual advisory purpose many of us came here to do. Instead, complainers come across as simply wanting to destabalize without actually offering anything of value. Look, if you think the RALO system is doomed to fail, or that NARALO is useless, please get out and let the rest of us have a go at it. As much as I appreciate the advice and history of the people who have experience at other ICANN advisory efforts, the defeatist baggage simply isn't worth it. It will be easy enough for the RALO model to fail without active efforts to vandalize it from within. I apologize for the tone of this; I am simply perplexed at the realization that there are folks here who have no interest in making this work, yet have enough time on their hands to hang around and impede those who do. - Evan
Luc: You seem too pessimistic. I did the math, and the numbers i got are a bit different. As I stated earlier, I think we did achieve to get more than 70% of the votes. here's the breakdown based on the spreadsheet sent earlier. - abstentions - 3 - didn't vote - 2 - no - 5 - yes - 14 # of votes cast (yes or no) : 19 - at least one, if not more of each of the two delegates from each ALS cast a vote in favor - 73.68 % against - 26.31 Thus, the 70% threshold has been met. As such, it would seem that the OP has been approved by "rough consensus" . if you breakdown the vote by country, you get see that there is a VERY significant difference between voting patterns in the USA and Canada. - USA: Abstention: 3 No: 4 Yes: 5 # of Votes Cast: 9. Yes: 5 (55.55%), No 4 (44.44%) - Canada: Abstention: None Yes: 8 No: 1 # of Votes Cast: 9. yes: 8 (88.88%), no: 1 (11.11%) An equal number of votes were cast on each side of the border. in both cases, the yeah's prevailed. In summary, the numbers detail what we already know - Canadians are overwhelmingly in favor, while americans are split on the issue. I personally am of the opinion that indeed rough consensus was achieved and we can go forward. regards Robert On 15-May-07, at 12:53 PM, Luc Faubert wrote:
To answer your question Robert, on whether we are on track with regards to the schedule, the answer is no. We're not on track. We're way off track.
The vote for the OP did not pass. Even without counting explicit abstentions, which I think should be the way to count, we did not achieve 70% of the votes. We needed 15 votes (21 x 70% = 14,7) and got 14. We need more than rough consensus to adopt the OP. As article 15 of our OP states, we need 70% of the active ALS to adopt them (we're counting the 2 unaffiliated delegates as one ALS).
At this point, 1 voting delegate from CAUCE Canada (Michael Parker) and one from Web405 (Dennis Wilen) have not voted. It's not clear to me whether their vote should count if they vote now.
It's been 2 weeks since the vote. Feeling it wasn't up to me to decide on the next steps, I was hoping for our interim Chair to decide on the way forward. Bret, can you help us out of this?
Also, the 5 people who voted "no" mentioned it was because they wanted to pursue discussions on the bicameral model. Yet it's been 2 weeks since the vote and I haven't seen any exchanges on the matter go by on the list,
_________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.uqbm.qc.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mr. Robert Guerra Sent: 15 mai 2007 11:14 To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Formation Schedule - are we on track ?
On 15-May-07, at 10:21 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
To follow on from my previous intervention in answer to this question, the definition of 'present and voting' which is internationally recognised is to count those who vote yes or no, not abstentions.
The definition on wikipedia supports Nick's view - which I agree with as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention
Abstention is a term in election procedure for when a participant in a vote either does not go to vote (on election day) or, in parliamentary procedure, is present during the vote, but does not cast a ballot. Abstention must be contrasted with "blank vote", in which a participant in a vote cast a deliberately unlegitimate vote (drawing pictures on the ballot, etc.) or in which he simply casts a blank vote: a "blank (or white) voter" has voted, although his vote may be considered a spoilt vote, depending on each legislation, while an abstentionnist hasn't voted. Both forms (abstention and blank vote) may or may not, depending on the circumstances, be considered as protest vote.
An abstention may be used to indicate the voting individual's ambivalence about the measure, or mild disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition. A person may also abstain when they do not feel adequately informed about the issue at hand, or has not participated in relevant discussion. In parliamentary procedure, a member may be required to abstain in the case of a real or perceived conflict of interest.
Abstentions do not count in tallying the vote; when members abstain, they are in effect only attending the meeting to aid in constituting a quorum. White votes, however, may be counted in the total of votes, depending on the legislation. In some countries, some activist groups advocates the counting of white votes and plain abstentions in the total result of vote as a way of displaying the percentage of people opposed to all parliamentary options.
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
At this point, 1 voting delegate from CAUCE Canada (Michael Parker) and one from Web405 (Dennis Wilen) have not voted. It's not clear to me whether their vote should count if they vote now.
Hold on, I'm pretty sure Parker meant to vote. I've reminded him.
Also, the 5 people who voted "no" mentioned it was because they wanted to pursue discussions on the bicameral model. Yet it's been 2 weeks since the vote and I haven't seen any exchanges on the matter go by on the list,
Not much point if you're going to steam roller ahead with the current versions. R's, John PS: If you see mail from someone called Mouse, that's Parker. It's the nickname by which he's universally known.
Well, I don't think allowing two weeks for conversation is anything near "steam-rollering". If any decent, workable ideas had come up in that time, I would have gone with it - just as I did for the changes in the code of conduct that you and Wendy suggested. I am just against certain ones trying to slow the process down for no apparent reason. If there were those that wanted a pause so as to discuss the bi-cameral thing, they had plenty of time to discuss it if they WERE actually interested in it (and not in just slowing things down). I think that the proof of the pudding is definitely in the eating. Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 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 John L Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 3:19 PM To: Luc Faubert Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Formation Schedule - are we on track ?
At this point, 1 voting delegate from CAUCE Canada (Michael Parker) and one from Web405 (Dennis Wilen) have not voted. It's not clear to me whether their vote should count if they vote now.
Hold on, I'm pretty sure Parker meant to vote. I've reminded him.
Also, the 5 people who voted "no" mentioned it was because they wanted to pursue discussions on the bicameral model. Yet it's been 2 weeks since the vote and I haven't seen any exchanges on the matter go by on the list,
Not much point if you're going to steam roller ahead with the current versions. R's, John PS: If you see mail from someone called Mouse, that's Parker. It's the nickname by which he's universally known. _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
participants (7)
-
Evan Leibovitch -
John L -
Luc Faubert -
Mr. Robert Guerra -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Robert Guerra
-
Thompson, Darlene