[ALAC] Explanation of RoP Director voting alternatives

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Fri Jun 17 12:32:45 UTC 2016

I did choose to get a few hours sleep last night, 
and this thread is what I find!!!!!!!!!

I am very short of time so cannot reply to all of 
the issue raised, but I will go back, because some of them are important.

Just a few notes:

1. We preferably do have to come to closure on 
this in Helsinki, and I believe that we will. But 
if we don't, the world will not collapse.

2. There are a lot of issues at play here. 
"fairness" is one, and picking the "best" 
candidate is another. BOTH terms are subjective 
and people have different views on what they mean 
in a particular case. We will probably not all 
agree, but that is why we have 15 people on the 
ALAC and we are MULTI-stakeholder.

4. The volume of e-mail on this subject, and that 
of the GAC Liaison is impressive. Let's keep it up on OTHER topics as well.

3. I will get back later in my day to summarize where we are on all issues.


At 17/06/2016 08:02 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:

>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.
>Sent from my LG G4
>Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>On 17 Jun 2016 12:35 p.m., "Kan Kaili" 
><<mailto:kankaili at gmail.com>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.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>Seun Ojedeji
>To: <mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net>Holly Raiche
>Cc: <mailto:kankaili at gmail.com>Kaili Kan ; 
><mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>Alan Greenberg 
>; <mailto:alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC 
>Working List ; <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
>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.
>On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Holly Raiche 
><<mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net>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).
>On 17 Jun 2016, at 6:06 pm, Seun Ojedeji 
><<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>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.
>>Sent from my LG G4
>>Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>On 17 Jun 2016 8:50 a.m., "Kan Kaili" 
>><<mailto:kankaili at gmail.com>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,
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx>León Felipe Sánchez Ambía
>>To: <mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net>Holly Raiche
>>Cc: <mailto:alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC 
>>Working List ; <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>Alan Greenberg
>>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,
>>>El 16/06/2016, a las 5:18 p.m., Holly Raiche 
>>><<mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net>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
>>>On 17 Jun 2016, at 1:48 am, Alan Greenberg 
>>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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.
>>>>At 16/06/2016 11:33 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:
>>>>>Dear Kaili,
>>>>>I’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 can’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 
>>>>>doesn̢۪t 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: <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>+216 98 330 114
>>>>>           +216 52 385 114
>>>>>>Le 16 juin 2016 Ã  15:46, Kan Kaili 
>>>>>><<mailto:kankaili at gmail.com>kankaili at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>>>>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,
>>>>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>From: <mailto:tijani.benjemaa at topnet.tn>Tijani BEN JEMAA
>>>>>>>To: <mailto:kankaili at gmail.com>Kan Kaili
>>>>>>>Cc: <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>Seun 
>>>>>>>Ojedeji ; 
>>>>>>><mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>Alan 
>>>>>>>Greenberg ; <mailto:alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC Working List
>>>>>>>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: <tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114>+216 98 330 114
>>>>>>>           +216 52 385 114
>>>>>>>>Le 16 juin 2016 Ã  12:00, Kan Kaili 
>>>>>>>><<mailto:kankaili at gmail.com>kankaili at gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>>>>>>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
>>>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>>At-Large Online: 
>>>>ALAC Working Wiki: 
>>>ALAC mailing list
>>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>>ALAC Working Wiki: 
>>ALAC mailing list
>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>ALAC Working Wiki: 
>>ALAC mailing list
>><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>>ALAC Working Wiki: 
>Seun Ojedeji,
>Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>web:     <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng>http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
>Mobile: +2348035233535
>alt email:<http://goog_1872880453> 
><mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
>Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Disposition: inline
>ALAC mailing list
>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20160617/9031a57e/attachment.html>

More information about the ALAC mailing list