[At-Large] ALS accreditation votes
Izumi AIZU
iza at anr.org
Tue Jun 12 11:52:03 EDT 2007
Thanks Vittorio for moving this to the public list, and I agree it should
be so.
2007/6/12, Siavash Shahshahani <shahshah at irnic.ir>:
> I feel that I have to throw in my two cents as the person who has perhaps
> contributed the greatest number of abstentions in the last 18 months. This
> does not go against my earlier statement that I will not further discuss
> my votes; it is just a discussion of general principles, no specific
> votes.
And I would echo with what Siavsh wrote below. I was worried since
he said it was the only posting on this matter, he may refrain from
making futher comments. So even it is of general principles, it helps
us a lot.
> 1.I don't agree with Jacqueline's characterization of abstentions as
> cop-outs; why couldn't the same term apply to all abstention votes in all
> voting situations as well? (Maybe you think it should.) On ALS
> applications abstention has generally had a clear message. At least in my
> case, when I had to go against the majority recommendation of the region,
> I abstained. I did explain this explicitly on at least on occasion saying
> that I abstained out of respect for the regional recommendation. So it was
> really a courteous no vote(and counted effectively as a 'no' because of
> the affirmation vote required). In cases where a party's application is
> rejected, I don't see why the majority could not get together and write an
> explanation.
What I strongly agree with is the different interpretation of the
"abstention" he suggested here.
> 2. In addition to formal ICANN by law criteria, my personal guide to
> voting has been my understanding of what 'at-large' really is. I have
> abstained or said 'no' when I had a strong suspicion that the particular
> candidate was under governmental or special-interest influence. Sometimes
> this is not so easy to discern, specially in the case of developing
> countries where govt influence is often very pervasive. Nevertheless, one
> could still look for clues of independence and autonomy; I wouldn't go for
> an automatic 'yes' just because the application comes from a
> less-developed country.
Not only the developing countries, but there are certain developed
countries where similar social culture exit - you may not expect
unless you live there.
izumi
> Siavash
>
> > Hi Vittorio
> > I agree that abstention should be rarely used, such as in cases of
> > conflict
> > of interest for example. Members of the ALAC should cast a valid vote -
> > yes
> > or no.
> > Reasons for a rejection must be given by the ALAC as a whole, but those
> > reasons do not necessarily have to be broken down by name of committee
> > member.
> > If we go the motions route, given that we vote pretty much as soon as the
> > DD
> > is ready, it may make the length of the process pass the 90 day deadline.
> > Jacqueline
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu]
> > Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:34 AM
> > To: At-Large Worldwide
> > Subject: [At-Large] ALS accreditation votes
> >
> > I am moving the discussion to the global list - I really think that this
> > is a matter that affects the entire constituency, not just the current
> > ALAC members.
> >
> > [The discussion is about modalities of voting for ALS accreditation - in
> > particular, whether ALAC members who abstain or vote against should be
> > required to provide explicit reasons for doing so, and whether
> > individual votes should remain public as it is now, or be kept
> > confidential.]
> >
> > One ALAC member wrote:
> >> - No matter what voting approach we apply (e.g. secret voting, opened
> >> voting), more important is the FEEDBACK we provide to the ALS
> >> applicants.
> >> So, that they are able to improve their structure/activities/priorities
> >> according to the established/provided criterias.
> >> For this purpose, the ALAC should provide a Letter with Recommendations
> >> on
> >
> >> behalf of the entire Committee.
> >
> > I agree with you on this. However, the problem we have is that the
> > failure to approve is the result of the sum of individual opinions, so
> > when the applicant asks "why did you reject my application, and what do
> > I have to do to improve?", you do not have an answer... perhaps there is
> > no answer, since the people that did not vote in favour might have done
> > so for very different reasons.
> >
> > I understand that some people might be afraid about having to explain
> > why they took a position against, especially in countries where there
> > might be social backlash arising from that. But it is also unreasonable
> > to deny participatory rights to someone, and when asked why, either say
> > "we don't know" (which makes it look like the Committee is not serious
> > and does not think before acting) or "we refuse to tell you" (which is
> > even worse).
> >
> > In the end, excluding someone from the constituency in which they want
> > to participate is quite a serious action, that must be backed by strong
> > and clear reasons, also because it might (and will, in most cases) be
> > subject to appeal to the Ombudsman or to the Board.
> >
> > Perhaps, if individual members have a problem in expressing themselves
> > publicly, we could change the system so that, in the due diligence
> > phase, those who are against write a motion to reject, stating also the
> > reasons why they think that the application should be rejected. In that
> > way, on the ballot you would have to pick one of two motions, one saying
> > "yes" and one saying "no, because..."; in that case, if the "no"
> > prevails, there would already be collective reasons stated and there
> > would be no need for members to provide explanations individually.
> >
> > So, basically we would have:
> > - a due diligence phase as usual;
> > - before the deadline for starting the vote, any member can privately
> > submit to the Chair a motion against, if he/she thinks that the
> > application is to be rejected; the author(s) of the motion shall remain
> > confidential;
> > - if no motions against are proposed, the application is approved on a
> > "no objections" basis;
> > - if there are motions against, then we vote (publicly or privately, as
> > we prefer) and we have a clear result.
> >
> > I would really like to get rid of abstentions - they were meant only for
> > direct conflict of interests (e.g. voting on one's own organization),
> > but in the end either the application meets the criteria, or it doesn't
> > - members should not refrain from taking a position on that, and in the
> > end, they can still not vote at all.
> > --
> > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <--------
> > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
> > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/842 - Release Date: 6/9/2007
> > 10:46 AM
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/842 - Release Date: 6/9/2007
> > 10:46 AM
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >
> > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
> > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
> >
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> IPM/IRNIC
> P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq.
> Tehran 19548, Iran
> Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113
> Cell: (+98 912)104 2501
> Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00
> Email: shahshah at irnic.ir, shahshah at nic.ir
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org
> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
>
>
--
>> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for HyperNetwork Society
Kumon Center, Tama University
* * * * *
<< Writing the Future of the History >>
www.anr.org
More information about the At-large
mailing list