[ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules

Tijani BEN JEMAA tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn
Fri Feb 1 14:30:32 UTC 2013



Several things :

·       I don’t think that there are on the ALAC people who have no clue to
vote on an issue

·       I don’t think we selected the wrong ALAC members

·       I think that if an ALAC member doesn’t have a precise opinion on a
certain issue, he/she will contact a member who is more involved is the
subject and who he/she trust to understand better the issue (not to ask how
to vote) so that he/she can vote according to his own opinion. This happened
to me in certain cases, and I’m not shy to ask about things that I don’t
have the full understanding.

·       The most important question is: what is the advantage of the

o   Would it give better result for the vote?

o   Would it give voters more independence?





My address tijani.benjemaa at fmai.org is not working properly any more. Please
use one of the 2 following addresses: tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn or
tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn



Executive Director

Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI)

Phone:  + 216 41 649 605

Mobile: + 216 98 330 114

Fax:       + 216 70 853 376






-----Message d'origine-----
De : alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg
Envoyé : jeudi 31 janvier 2013 20:51
À : Dev Anand Teelucksingh; ALAC Working List
Objet : Re: [ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules


In my mind, it is essential that we see who has voted and who has 

not. That allows regional people to make sure their ALAC members vote.


If we are so worried about people who have no clue how to vote on an 

issue and will be easily pressured, I really think that we have 

selected the wrong ALAC members.


As Evan said, all of us occasionally find that on a specific topic, 

we don't have strong positions, but are glad to take a hint from 

someone we respect. The alternative, as I have mentioned is to not 

vote at all, or vote randomly, or blindly say yes to every such poll. 

All of which I find far more distasteful than having a colleague you 

respect point you in a direction.


Remember, these votes are being taken electronically because we do 

not have a meeting scheduled at a convenient time. If we did have 

such a meeting, it would all be out in the open. Why hide the details 

in this situation.


In fact, although I had not thought about it earlier, seeing that a 

colleague that you respect voted in the opposite direction to your 

inclination is a really healthy thing. You may well call them up and 

ask why - what do they know that you don't - and maybe should.


If we did not use BigPulse, we would probably do what so many other 

organizations do in this kind of situation, simply send your vote to 

the mailing list. And it is all in the open, and people who don't 

vote can be urged on by their colleagues.


Or maybe we want to go to secret ballots for everything.




At 31/01/2013 02:26 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:

>Dear Alan,


>My preference is to keep 4 as is. (Only when the vote is ended, do we

>(and observers) see how each person has voted.)


>I wonder what is the need of rules 1 to 3 for ALAC votes conducted

>online. The duration of such votes is typically several days.


>Consider a scenario when an online ALAC vote is ongoing and the vote

>is split with no clear outcome. Observers and ALAC members can see 6

>persons voted no, 6 persons voted yes and by a process of elimination,

>know which 3 ALAC members have yet to vote.


>Doesn't the potential exist where the 3 ALAC members yet to vote can

>be contacted by other ALAC members or observers to influence their



>Perhaps to ensure the integrity of the voting process, rules 1 to 3

>should be removed. This would mean no information during the voting

>period is shown to ALAC members and observers.



>Kind Regards,


>Dev Anand Teelucksingh




>On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Alan Greenberg

><alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> > Currently we have in place a set of rules (approved by the ALAC in

> > June 2009) on how votes are to be conducted (that is votes that are

> > not in reference to named individuals).

> >

> > Those rules are:

> >

> > 1.  As the vote is proceeding, we can see how many people have voted.

> > 2.  As the vote is proceeding, we can see who has voted.

> > 3.  As the vote is proceeding, we can see a tally of how the votes

> > have been cast.

> > 4.  When the vote is ended, we can see how each person has voted.

> > 5.  The order of the options should not change as the vote proceeds.

> > 6.  Outsiders who cannot vote can look at all of the above interim

> >

> > Rule 4 was there because previously, we had on some occasions used a

> > BigPulse option to order the options so that the winning one was

> > first. The rules were debated and approved because at the time, we

> > seemd to used a semi-random set of voting parameters for each vote.

> >

> > Based on the last few votes, we seem to be back at the state of

> > semi-random variations in each vote (the current ALS approval vote

> > does not allow a voter to see who has already voted, the recent votes

> > on ALAC statements on Thickwhois and IGO/INGO questions did allow

> > viewing the list of those who had voted).

> >

> > Since we are in the process of cleaning up the overall ALAC rules, it

> > makes sense to revisit this one prior to having staff adjust

> > procedures to ensure that our rules are being met.

> >

> > So I ask whether these are the rules we want or if changes need to be

> >

> > I would suggest one change. Since these rules were created to have a

> > similar effect as a face-to-face vote with all parties and observers

> > in the same room, I would suggest the replacement of 4 with:

> >

> > 4. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how voted have voted.

> >

> > This was considered last time, but was not used due to a fear that

> > seeing how people vote could influence later votes. My thoughts are

> > that this is exactly what happens in a face-to-face vote and should

> > not change because we are voting electronically.

> >

> > Does anyone have any thoughts on this. Specifically:

> >

> > A) Should we keep the current rules?

> > B) Should we replace 4. as suggested?

> > C) Any other changes you believe we should make?

> >

> > We regularly demand transparency of other parts of ICANN and

> > particularly the Board. I think that we should use the same standard

> > for ourselves.

> >

> > Alan

> >

> > _______________________________________________

> > ALAC mailing list

> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org

> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

> >

> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org

> > ALAC Working Wiki: 



>ALAC mailing list

>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org



>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org

>ALAC Working Wiki: 




ALAC mailing list

ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org



At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org

ALAC Working Wiki:

More information about the ALAC mailing list