[At-Large] ALS accreditation votes
Izumi AIZU
iza at anr.org
Tue Jun 12 14:16:14 EDT 2007
I have no problem, Jqcqueline, to be idealist and stand behind
your act. I am not so sure to "impose" that to every act of
every individual every time.
There is a meaningful difference between No and polite no,
or amviguous position and in a reare occasion, this could
happen to you or me. I like to preserve the last resort like
that just in case...
I will stop here and let's talk in San Juan on this matter.
izumi
2007/6/13, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam at jacquelinemorris.com>:
> I still personally believe that one should cast a valid vote in almost all
> cases, and also personally that not voting is a dereliction of the duty that
> we have taken on. And I still believe that the best way to say a polite no
> is to say "no" and "this is why I said no - it isn't personal." Abstention
> can mean a lot of things, so it isn't clear that it is no. No is definitely
> NO.
> But I looked until I found a definition that can possibly support Siavash's
> position on an abstention being a polite no. See below.
>
> Abstention is a term in parliamentary procedure for when a participant in a
> vote is not absent, but does not cast a ballot. An abstention may be used to
> indicate the voting individual's ambivalence about the measure, or mild
> disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition.
>
> If we agree to accept this definition then we may have to change the way
> that we count votes for the applicants - we cannot have a system that allows
> applicants to lie in limbo without any reasons.
>
> I also think that it is important for us to say why we say no or polite no -
> it's important for the applicants, it's important for us when we have to
> look at the criteria now and in the future, it's important for the new ALAC
> members to look back and keep a certain standard going and not have the
> application of criteria change as the members of the ALAC change.
>
> It's important for us to stand behind our votes, to say why we voted the way
> we did. It doesn't have to be publicly identifiable information, to take
> into consideration Izumi's points about Government and other pressures,
> potential loss of life etc, but I feel strongly that we have to stand up and
> say - this is what I think. (even if I is anonymous!)
>
> In some of the bits above I might sound to some of you like a naïve
> idealist, but there are some things that I really feel strongly about, and
> standing up and shouldering what I feel is our responsibility to the
> constituency is definitely one of them. Generally I'm really practical,
> though :)
>
> Jacqueline
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:iza at anr.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 1:25 PM
> To: jam at jacquelinemorris.com
> Cc: shahshah at irnic.ir; At-Large Worldwide
> Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALS accreditation votes
>
> As agreed at the conf call today, I would like to move this discussion
> at the San Juan meeting in a closed and face-to-face meeting.
>
> I like to say, in advnace, that even some people think this is
> "administrative",
> and it will largely be so, there will be cases which may be seen as more
> "political" or substantive than just administrative.
>
> I also like to say, sometimes abstention is used to show certain
> will, not yes not no, and we should also respect that. Making it
> black or what looks simpler and better, I respectfuly disagree.
>
> And as I emphasized in the conference call, we have very different
> values and ideas about how election/voting/decisions be made
> on this planet earth by region. I have seen it happened at the
> first "global" AtLarge Director election - but to me at that time
> it was seen as "experiment" and people did not pay much attention
> to the basic rule of election/voting - the result is to terminate the
> election as a whole. So we should be really careful for some of
> the seemingly monior points to think of the unintended or unexpeted
> consequesnce and interpretations.
>
> izumi
>
>
>
>
>
> 2007/6/13, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam at jacquelinemorris.com>:
> > Hi Siavash
> > Yet again, I think that abstention is a specific tool for use in very
> > limited situations - one being in the case of a conflict of interest -
> > voting on one's own organization, for example. Using it because one
> chooses
> > not to make a decision - on something controversial for example, to me is
> > not doing the job that we were put here to do. There is time for
> discussion
> > within the ALAC. If someone has questions or disagrees with the regional
> > recommendation, I think that is a cause for discussion - maybe that person
> > has seen something that the region missed, or the region has information
> > that the person is lacking. In either case, we should discuss it so that
> the
> > decision is made with the most information possible. If your decision is
> no
> > - then it should be entered as such, and not as an abstention to spare the
> > feelings of the region.
> >
> > Abstentions do not count as no, but they do count as we have rules that
> > require a certain number of valid votes. If not enough valid (yes/no)
> votes
> > are cast (too many abstentions), as has happened in the last voting cycle,
> > then the applicant is in limbo - neither certified nor rejected with a
> clear
> > list of reasons. The application may continue to have many abstentions and
> > not enough votes for voting session after voting session after voting
> > session. Will they then stay in limbo? They don't get any reasons for the
> > abstentions, and they aren't rejected and given reasons so they can change
> > to fit the criteria if they so desire.
> >
> > This vote is an administrative function. We have criteria to apply. Either
> > the organisation meets the criteria or it doesn't. If it doesn't, the ALAC
> > has a requirement to say why. So, the people who vote no should have a
> > requirement to say why - otherwise how can we send the reasons to the
> > applicant?
> > The criteria do not have an automatic yes free pass for a developing
> > country, and I would never suggest such a thing.
> >
> > With regard to influence, we will probably need to add some more questions
> > to the application form and the DD form to be able to have more than a
> > "strong suspicion" of undue influence from any sector - and we should move
> > to include this in the criteria in a very specific way. But generally, if
> > one member of the ALAC has this sort of information, I think that it
> should
> > be shared with the whole and discussed. But I still don't think that it
> > should mean abstention - in cases like this, it should mean that we go
> back
> > to the applicant and ask for clarification, or to the staff doing the due
> > diligence and ask for more information.
> >
> > This seems to me to be the fairest, most objective way to look at these
> > applicants. We owe it to them to get all the information, to consider and
> > discuss, and to vote Yes or No in a timely manner except in the most rare
> of
> > circumstances in which case an abstention can be cast, and to give them
> > reasons for rejection so that they are not left in limbo.
> >
> > Jacqueline
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Siavash Shahshahani [mailto:shahshah at irnic.ir]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 9:21 AM
> > To: jam at jacquelinemorris.com
> > Cc: 'Vittorio Bertola'; 'At-Large Worldwide'
> > Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALS accreditation votes
> >
> > 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.
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> > 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
> > -----------------------------------------------
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007
> > 5:10 PM
> >
> >
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007
> > 5:10 PM
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007
> 5:10 PM
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.13/844 - Release Date: 6/11/2007
> 5:10 PM
>
>
>
--
>> 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