[ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives

Fri Jun 17 12:02:29 UTC 2016

Hello Kaili,

It is not about the ALT vs randomisation. The act of randomisation at that
point is in fairness to the contestants. We the electorate know that either
of them is fine, giving it over to the ALT to choose (don't forget that ALT
is part of those who already voted) gives whoever lost some reason to feel
the winner has personal attachment to the ALT.

Now I will still be fine if we indeed leave it to the ALT to "toss the
coin" as that would still imply randomisation. What we should not be doing
at that point is having the ALT vote on whom among the contestant is
preferred.

Regards

Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 17 Jun 2016 12:35 p.m., "Kan Kaili" <kankaili at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, Suen,
>
> The issue is about comparing ALT's selection capability vs. ranmdomness.
> Are you saying that ALT's selection would be even worse than randomness?
>
> If that is the case, let's close our eyes and let ALT to toss the coin.
> If that is not the case, let's again close our eyes and let ALT make the
> decision as well.
>
> Best,
> Kaili
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> *To:* Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>
> *Cc:* Kaili Kan <kankaili at gmail.com> ; Alan Greenberg
> <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> ; ALAC Working List
> <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org> ; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
> <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 17, 2016 7:28 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives
>
> Hello Holly,
>
> This is not about my level of trust for the ALT, all the electorates are
> one way or the other put in their positions by their regions and they are
> equally trustworthy so i would have still said the same thing if we
> delegated the role to ALAC or any other leadership.
>
> My point is that when/if we get to that bridge where 2 or more already
> tied contestants returns tied again, it implies both of them are qualified
> to be elected and it should not require any other individual(s) to
> deliberate on which one of them to choose. The element of luck should just
> play its magic at that point; we should all just close our eyes and select
> one of them which is the act of selection by randomization.
>
> Regards
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Seun
>>
>> I really worry about your statement that randomness is preferable to the
>> ALT’s role - an unnecessary human perspective.
>>
>> ALT members are there because their regions have put them there.  But
>> when it comes to the crunch, they are not to be trusted!  Really!
>>
>> I agree, that we are now talking about a very unlikely scenario which,
>> hopefully, will not happen.  That said, I’d really prefer to think that
>> human consideration is preferable.  (and the normal practice in all Boards
>> is that when a Board member is too closely tied to a particular outcome,
>> they excuse themselves from participating in making the relevant
>> decision(s).
>>
>> Holly
>>
>>
>> On 17 Jun 2016, at 6:06 pm, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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)
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:
> http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>Mobile: +2348035233535**alt
> email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> <seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
>
> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20160617/eec9c416/attachment.html>