[ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes

[Alberto Soto]

Again, I agree Alan. Not all measures of a democratic government, are ideal. 
Seek balance, governance and better functionality.
Regards

Alberto

-----Mensaje original-----
De: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Alan Greenberg
Enviado el: viernes, 03 de octubre de 2014 02:30 p.m.
Para: sandra hoferichter; Evan Leibovitch
CC: ALAC
Asunto: Re: [ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes

Most votes would be open. Our rules allow someone to explain their vote if they wish (particularly a no or abstain). For those few votes where there is no recommendation from the RALO, the vote would be secret, BUT we would be able to privately request a rationale for the vote.

You are correct (in my view) that in an ideal world, the ALAC members, who have an obligation to support the ALAC, At-Large and ICANN, could vote against the wishes of some in their RALO, and could justify this. The same is true for personnel votes, and some parts of ICANN have those open as well.

But I am not sure ALAC members are paid enough to subject them to possible harassment if we can easily remedy it.

Alan

At 03/10/2014 01:17 PM, sandra hoferichter wrote:
>Hi all, my thoughts on one point. I understand or self as being 
>privileged in terms that most of us are elected by their RALOs to 
>represent their interest. They put trust in us. Sometimes we have to 
>take decisions such as certification and decertification. I see the 
>point of personal relationships within a RALO - which might be 
>challenged depending on he vote. BUT as we have a certain 
>responsibility here I think all of us should take that burden to 
>justify a decision personally within the region and globally as a 
>group. This would be in my POV the most democratic approach.
>
>Best Sandra
>
>(Note: This message was send from my iPhone - I do apologise for any 
>misspelling.)
>
> > Am 03.10.2014 um 17:52 schrieb Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>:
> >
> > On 3 October 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> You are saying that your suggestion for for 2 would be:
> >>
> >> 2. We have general agreement that for certification votes where 
> >> there is definitive regional advice, we should have standard open 
> >> votes. For cases where there is not definitive regional
> advice, how ALAC members vote should
> >> not be published.
> >
> > ​Yes, that is a clearer expression of my internt. Thanks.​
> >
> > ​- Evan​
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committe
> e+(ALAC)

_______________________________________________
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: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)