<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>Hi,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>I have followed this discussion with interest but also
confussion. It seems to me that different options have different pros,
cons and possible outcomes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>I believe this process is highly executable, and is
also fully democratic to its limit.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>Being the most junior member of ALAC, just expressing
some of my thoughts for your consideration.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>Best regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体>Kaili</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=宋体></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">Alan
Greenberg</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体"><B>To:</B> <A title=seun.ojedeji@gmail.com
href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">Seun Ojedeji</A> ; <A
title=tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn href="mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn">Tijani
BEN JEMAA</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
href="mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org">ALAC Working List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, June 16, 2016 1:26 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 9pt 宋体"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [ALAC] Explanation of RoP
Director voting alternatives</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>As I said, I think that option 2 will lead to strategic voting
where the supporters of the leading candidate may vote for the WEAKEST
candidate instead of for their preferred choice (among the two), and I believe
that in the final race, we should have the two strongest candidates against
each other. <BR><BR>You are correct that option 1 brings the leading
contestant in, but option 2 allows the electors who support this candidate to
vote (since we could not exclude them!)<BR><BR>But clearly others have a
different views. Makes life interesting!<BR><BR>Alan<BR><BR>At 15/06/2016
12:22 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">I would agree with Tijani's
option as well, for similar reason; I think it's just fair not to bring the
leading contestant in the tie breaking process between 2 other
contestants.<BR><BR>Regards<BR><BR>Regards<BR><BR>Sent from my LG
G4<BR>Kindly excuse brevity and typos<BR>On 15 Jun 2016 16:59, "Tijani BEN
JEMAA" <<A href="mailto:tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn">
tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn</A>> wrote:<BR>
<DL>
<DD><FONT color=#002e7a>Hi Alan,</FONT><BR><FONT color=#002e7a><BR>
<DD>My inclination is to option 2. I find it more logical and preserve the
right of the candidate with the best score. I think that the first vote is
done without side consideration, means that each electorate member will
vote for their preferred candidate, and its result is the more relevant
with the electorate choice. So, it’s fair to respect it and keep the
candidate with the best score and rerun the vote to break the tie between
the tied candidates.<BR></FONT><BR>
<DD>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<DD>Tijani BEN JEMAA<BR></B>
<DD>Executive Director<BR>
<DD>Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI</B>)<BR>
<DD>Phone: <A href="tel:%2B216%2098%20330%20114">+216 98 330 114</A><BR>
<DD> <A
href="tel:%2B216%2052%20385%20114">+216 52 385 114</A><BR>
<DD>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">
<DD>Le 10 juin 2016 Ã 22:22, Alan Greenberg <<A
href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</A> >
a écrit :<BR><BR>
<DD>In the Rules of Procedure revision that I sent a few days ago, there
are several options to one of the voting stages in the selection of the
At-Large Director. The RoP revision group did not reach unanimity on
which option to pick (largely because of the deadline required to sent
the revision to the ALAC to allow us to approve the revisions in
Helsinki).<BR><BR>
<DD>The options have to do with the reduction of three candidates to
two. In the optimal case, one of the three candidates will have fewer
votes (or first preference votes) and will be dropped, resulting in two
candidates being left. The difficulty arises if the two candidates tie
for last place, but with the leading candidate not receiving an absolute
majority of votes needed to be declared the final winner.<BR><BR>
<DD>Option 1: Re-run the entire three-way election, with the hope that
some positions may have changed. This would be done just once. If the
second vote results in a tie for the last position (even if it is not
the same pair as the first time), one of those tied is eliminated based
on a verifiable random selection. The down side of this method is that
no one may alter their vote and we would have to use a random
selection.<BR><BR>
<DD>Option 2: Have a run-off vote between the two tied candidates. If
the results between the two is tied, a verifiable random selection would
be used to eliminate one of them. The down side of this option is
something called "strategic voting". Those electors who originally voted
for the leading candidate (the one not in this runoff) may not vote for
the person they prefer, but could vote for the one they perceive
as the weakest opponent to their preferred candidate.<BR><BR>
<DD>Option 3: There will be no 2nd vote. One of the two tied candidates
will be dropped based on a verifiable random selection.<BR><BR>
<DD>Option 4: Use the same STV voting as would be used in the first
round (to narrow the slate down to three). The BigPulse STV system will
always eliminate one candidate, but if it must resort to a random
selection, it would be internal to the voting system and would not be
verifiable (ie it would have to be trusted to have used a truly random
selection.<BR><BR>
<DD>Since the ALAC will have to decide on a which option to use, it
would be good to begin the discussion now and not wait for
Helsinki.</DD></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>
<DD>_______________________________________________<BR>
<DD>ALAC mailing list<BR>
<DD><A
href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</A><BR>
<DD><A href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac"
eudora="autourl">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</A><BR><BR>
<DD>At-Large Online: <A
href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</A> <BR>
<DD>ALAC Working Wiki: <A
href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</A>
<BR></DD></DL></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>ALAC mailing
list<BR>ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org<BR>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac<BR><BR>At-Large
Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org<BR>ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>