[ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives

Fri Jun 17 08:06:52 UTC 2016

Hello Kaili,

I think we need to be clear here, going the random option is last resort
and we all may actually never experience it. Three steps would have
happened before randomly doing stuff:

1. There would have been a contested position
2. Votes would have been casted and resulted to a tie
3. Another set of votes would have been casted among the contestants in 2
above.

Once the above still result to a tie, I think it is just fair to go to
randomisation that is verifiable. At that point there would be no human
subjectivity as it is assumed that both tied contestants are qualified to
be elected. Seeding that role to ALT brings in unnecessary human
perspective/interference which won't be necessary at that point.

Secondly, the ALT members are part of the electorates and there may even be
instances where one of them is a contestant so delegating a section of the
electorate the responsibility to determine the elected would not be a fair
election process.

Regards
Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 17 Jun 2016 8:50 a.m., "Kan Kaili" <kankaili at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, Leon,
>
> I agree with you that a random selection process is the best in accordance
> to "fairness".
>
> However, including this random factor into the selection process implies
> that we at ALAC rather trust randomness instead of our own elected ALT.
> This also implies that we regard personal fairness to be more important
> than the effectiveness of selecting our Board Member.  Are those what we
> really want?
>
> As I understand, the Board Member is to represent ALAC, all the RALOs and
> ALSs, and in turn all the end-users to the Board.  This is a serious
> position with enormous responsibility.  I am not sure about what the
> end-users will think, but at least I will not feel comfortable having a
> randomly selected person to represent me.  Furthermore, I am not sure if
> such a selectee would feel confident and be effective at that position
> either.
>
> Sorry to disagree with you on some points.
>
> Best regards,
> Kaili
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
> *To:* Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>
> *Cc:* ALAC Working List <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org> ; Alan Greenberg
> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 17, 2016 12:03 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives
>
> Hello all,
>
> My sense is that option 2 is the best in fairness. While I understand the
> complexities of the rest of the options, I believe letting those candidates
> tied for last place compete amongst them is the most transparent way to
> address the challenge. In case they are tied again, then it would be
> justified to run the verifiable random disqualification process.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> León
>
> El 16/06/2016, a las 5:18 p.m., Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>
> escribió:
>
> I have to agree with Alan (and Kaili) here.
>
> I don’t think Kaili was suggesting that the ALT take over anything.
>  However, they may be situations where, for timing reasons, the ALT may be
> an appropriate mechanism to reach a decision.
>
> In the longer term, yes, we do need rules to deal with situations that
> have been described, and they must be as open and democratic and fair as
> possible.  But we must also reserve the means of solving disputes in ways
> that do not absorb too much time and energy of ALAC members.  I”m sure
> there will be a solution, hopefully without absorbing too much more time
> and effort  of all of us
>
> Holly
>
>
> On 17 Jun 2016, at 1:48 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> wrote:
>
> To be clear, Tijani is correct that the ALT does not, de facto, have any
> rights to take decisions on behalf of the ALAC other than those rights of
> the Chair which the Chair might actively delegate to the ALT.
>
> However, the ALAC may, if it chooses, from time to time, delegate actions
> of the ALAC to the ALT. It happens relatively rarely, but does on occasion
> occur, usually for reasons of tight timing requirements.
>
> Alan
>
> At 16/06/2016 11:33 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
>
> Dear Kaili,
>
> Iâ€™m sorry to disagree with you on everything:
>
>    - The electorate is not constituted by the ALAC members only, but also
>    the RALO leaders, so the ALAC canâ€™t delegate to ALT what is not its sole
>    duty
>    - even if we suppose that the ALT is elected democratically by the
>    ALAC members, this doesnâ€™t mean that the ALT can be delegated to replace
>    the ALAC. This is exactly the argument given by the authoritarian regimes
>    arguing that since they were elected by their people, they have all the
>    rights to do everything on their behalf because they know better then the
>    people where is their interest. When you are democratically elected, it is
>    a mandate for a limited time to do certain things; it is not an open
>    mandate to replace who elected you outside the mandate you are elected
>    for.
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*Executive Director
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>           +216 52 385 114
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Le 16 juin 2016 Ã  15:46, Kan Kaili <kankaili at gmail.com> a Ã©crit :
>
> Hi, Tijani,
>
> The awswer to your question: Basically, yes.  That is, when ALAC faces a
> tie during the selection of its Board Director, or other positions
> generally in principle, the ALT will be delegated to make the selection on
> behalf of ALAC.
>
> The justification of this includes:
>
> - When there is a tie, all the tied candidates are equal representations
> of ALAC.
>
> - The ALT is democratically elected with full representation of all
> regions, cultures and, presumably, various interests.
>
> - ALT members are elected due to their experience and contribution to
> ICANN's mission, who should also be most capable to make the best selection
> among candidates.
>
> - As the ALT will be making the selection on behalf of all of ALAC, the
> process should be open to all ALAC voting members (not beyond).  Thus, the
> selection made by each ALT member in this process will affect the support
> he/she receives during later elections of the ALT.  This will in turn put a
> "lid" on any possible blackbox deals which will be the safeguard for our
> democratic principle.
>
> - We at ALAC are merely representatives of ALSes, or of the end-users in
> the world (maybe to a lesser extent regarding NomCom selectees like me).
> Thus, as they elected and delegated us to make selections on their behalf,
> it would also make sense to extend the same principle to the ALT in the
> case we cannot effectively make a selection.
>
> Furthermore, as Alan pointed out, it is possible, even likely, that
> tied-candidates be ALT members themselves, and even the chairperson
> him/herself.  So be it.  I don't think anywhere in the world's elections
> prohibit a person to vote for him/herself.  Based on the above same
> arguments, he/she has received enough support for the position during the
> "general" election process, and is thus well deserved.  Thus, he/she moving
> to the Board will vacate the ALT position, maybe even the chairperson
> position, for new blood.  Also, as he/she gets the position as desired, I
> am sure that he/she will work even harder to contribute to ICANN's mission.
>
> Of course, before ALT selects on behalf of the whole ALAC, how many rounds
> of tie-breaking need to take place is up to debate.  As I am not familiar
> to the current process, I am sure that, with so much wisdom in ALAC, a
> process to bridge the gap between the current process and the future one
> could be designed.  However, again as Arrow's Nobel-prized Theorem has
> proven, especially as the Board Member selection process has been a "long
> and painful" one so far, a certain degree of "dictatorship"
> ("democracy-based dictatorship" to be exact) has to be there as a last
> resort.
>
> Thank you, and thank you all.
>
> Best regards,
> Kaili
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>
> *To:* Kan Kaili <kankaili at gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> ; Alan Greenberg
> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> ; ALAC Working List
> <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 16, 2016 8:58 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives
>
> Dear Kaili,
>
> Do you propose that in the selection of the Board Director selected by
> At-Large, when we face a tie, we delegate the ALT to decide which one
> should be dropped????
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Tijani BEN JEMAA*Executive Director
> Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (*FMAI*)
> Phone: +216 98 330 114
>           +216 52 385 114
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Le 16 juin 2016 Ã  12:00, Kan Kaili <kankaili at gmail.com> a Ã©crit :
>
> Hi,
>
> I have followed this discussion with interest but also confussion.  It
> seems to me that different options have different pros, cons and possible
> outcomes.
>
> As a matter of fact, this reminds me of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem,
> basically saying that democracy can only go so far, and may not necessarily
> lead to a fair outcome acceptable by everybody.  In that case, some degree
> of "dictatorship" is warranted.  This is why republics are established, as
> well as why the presidential race between Bush and Gore was finally decided
> by the Supreme Court.
>
> Thus, in our case, when a tie has appeared, I suggest to delegate ALT to
> decide who will represent ALAC at the position.  After all, the ALT is
> elected by all of us thru a fully democratic process.  Good enough.  In the
> case that even the ALT cannot decide, the chairperson of ALAC will make the
> final decision.
>
> I believe this process is highly executable, and is also fully democratic
> to its limit.
>
> Being the most junior member of ALAC, just expressing some of my thoughts
> for your consideration.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20160617/40839517/attachment.html>