[ALAC] ALS certification and decertification votes

Fri Oct 3 18:59:39 UTC 2014

I have to question how much refinement we should 
be putting into something that so far, has 
happened perhaps once every year or two or three 
and to the best of my recollection has only been 
challenged once in our history.

Personally, I can readily accept 1 or 3.  Which I 
have a preference for I will keep to myself for the moment.

I would prefer not to take 2, but could accept 
it, but suspect it may make us unable to properly 
fulfill our mandate and we would need to do some 
additional investigation regarding the 
interpretation of the Bylaws and how ombudsman issues are resolved.

Alan

At 03/10/2014 02:27 PM, Raf Fatani wrote:
>Indeed that is how I understand it.
>
>If we had a vote on these three items, I would 
>*openly* vote for 'Option One’. HOWEVER, maybe 
>there needs to be a mechanism of 'checks and balances' to this option.
>
>This said, maybe we can find agreement in these 
>'checks and balances' in order to find consensus in this group.
>
>Would this be a good starting point? if so, for 
>those who would vote for 'Option Three’, what 
>would be an acceptable ‘checks and balances’ 
>mechanism that you would find agreeable?
>
>Kind Regards,
>
>Raf
>
>
>On 3 Oct 2014, at 19:05, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> > This is getting to be interesting.
> >
> > So far, I think that we have general 
> agreement on how to handle all votes except a 
> certification where the RALO is undecided. Here we have multiple positions.
> >
> > 1. Secret but staff/chair can access details
> > 2. Everything secret.
> > 3. Everything published.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > At 03/10/2014 01:42 PM, Fatima Cambronero wrote:
> >
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> I agree with Sandra on this.
> >>
> >> I expressed in our last teleconference a 
> similar point: our roles are as representatives from our RALOs.
> >>
> >> I think whenever possible, our votes in 
> certification and decertification processes 
> should be open and transparent and be available to be consulted for our RALOs.
> >>
> >> I believe it is easy to deal with happy 
> people, when we voted in the same sense that 
> our RALO expressed. But the main skill of a 
> leader is dealing with less happy people when 
> we voted on contrary sense of their "mandate". 
> If we can explain why our votes were in 
> different sense, we don't be worried because 
> some RALO members don't smile us anymore.
> >>
> >> Just my 2 cents.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >>
> >> Fatima
> >>
> >> 2014-10-03 14:39 GMT-03:00 Alberto Soto 
> <<mailto:asoto at ibero-americano.org>asoto at ibero-americano.org>:
> >> Again, I agree Alan. Not all measures of a 
> democratic government, are ideal.
> >> Seek balance, governance and better functionality.
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Alberto
> >>
> >> -----Mensaje original-----
> >> De: 
> <mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>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 <<mailto:evan at telly.org>evan at telly.org>:
> >> > >
> >> > > On 3 October 2014 11:42, Alan Greenberg 
> <<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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.
> >> > >
> >> > > Ã¢€â€¹Yes, that is a clearer expression of my iinternt. Thanks.Ã¢€â€¹
> >> > >
> >> > > Ã¢€â€¹- EvanÃ¢€â€¹
> >> > > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > ALAC mailing list
> >> > > <mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >> > >
> >> > > At-Large Online: 
> <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
> >> > 
> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committe>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committe
> >> > e+(ALAC)
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ALAC mailing list
> >> <mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >>
> >> At-Large Online: 
> <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org 
> ALAC Working Wiki: 
> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ALAC mailing list
> >> <mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >>
> >> At-Large Online: 
> <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> >> ALAC Working Wiki: 
> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Fatima Cambronero
> >> Abogada-Argentina
> >>
> >> Phone: +54 9351 5282 668
> >> Twitter: @facambronero
> >> Skype: fatima.cambronero
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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)
>
>_______________________________________________
>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)