[At-Large] Fwd: Election of the ALAC Liaison to the ICANN Board ofDirectors - result ?

[Izumi AIZU]

So the vote results clearly indicates it did not reach the
quorum.

I read Jaqueline's email, and assume others, too.
So it is not wheter we read it or not, but her text is
also confusing - she moved, but without specifics.

She wrote "Nick - shall we set up a poll or
go via email to you?"

Then the ononle voting was setup, but at least some of us are
further confused by Aaln's withdrawal or the request etc.
Others may have felt the voting itself is not necesarry
given the situation - Alan withdrew the request.

You don't seem to take these other important elements into consideration
and trying to move us to only one direction. THat is why a number
of ALAC members feel you are trying too much. I hope you see yourself
in the bigger picture.

izumi


2007/9/10, Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart at icann.org>:
>
> From a number of emails on this list it appears that Members may not have
> read the email below from Jacqueline. This is the reason why a vote as below
> was held.
> The result of the vote below is as follows, and may be independently
> verified at: http://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=QCaKS5KXqpkBg8buLjLm
>
> *Poll Results*
> *Poll menu:* ALAC Board Liaison Election
> *Report date:* Sun 09 Sep 2007 18:33 UTC
>
>
> *Resuls of the 2007/2008 ALAC Board Liaison Election*
>
> *As at:* Fri 07 Sep 2007 23:59 UTC
> Number of voters: 5
> Ranked by votes
> *Rank*
> *Decision*
> *Votes*
> *%*
> 1
> The two ALAC Members who have not voted should be permitted to cast their
> vote
> 3
> 60.00
> 2
> The existing election should stand as final
> 2
> 40.00
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *"Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam at jacquelinemorris.com>
> *Date: *5 September 2007 15:53:19 GMT+02:00
> *To: *<sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr>, "'Izumi AIZU'" <iza at anr.org>, "'Nick
> Ashton-Hart'" <nick.ashton-hart at icann.org>
> *Cc: *"'At-Large Worldwide'" <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> *Subject: **RE: [At-Large] Election of the ALAC Liaison to the ICANN Board
> ofDirectors - result ?*
> *Reply-To: *<jam at jacquelinemorris.com>
>
> Hi
> We have 2 motions seconded  on the table now -
> 1)  To call the vote as is leaving out the people who who weren't able to
> vote  - but tried/wanted - to vote
> 2) To extend the voting for 2 days to allow the people who weren't able to
> vote  - but tried/wanted - to vote
>
> So I move for a vote now for either 1 or 2. Nick - shall we set up a poll
> or
> go via email to you? I thought I had access to set up polls, but I seem
> not
> to be able to right now.
>
> Jacqueline
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr<sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr>
> ]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 09:16
> To: 'Izumi AIZU'; jam at jacquelinemorris.com
> Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide'
> Subject: RE: [At-Large] Election of the ALAC Liaison to the ICANN Board
> ofDirectors - result ?
>
> I support this motion seconded.
> All the best
>
> Sébastien Bachollet
> Président
> sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr
> www.egeni.org
> www.isoc.fr
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> [mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org<alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>]
> De la part de Izumi AIZU
> Envoyé : mercredi 5 septembre 2007 04:32
> À : jam at jacquelinemorris.com
> Cc : At-Large Worldwide
> Objet : Re: [At-Large] Election of the ALAC Liaison to the ICANN Board
> ofDirectors - result ?
>
> I second Jaqueline's proposal. Let' make a minimum
> allowance for the two to vote, but not re-open the
> entire vote.
>
> izumi
>
> 2007/9/5, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam at jacquelinemorris.com>:
>
> We won't know
> But I think that they may want to vote, given that there was a mixup in
>
> the
>
> timelines. We should give them the opportunity, and one has already
> indicated that they wanted to vote, but was confused given the RoP vote
> timeline and tried to vote when it was somewhat cleared up but it was
> already closed, so I would agree with the suggestion that we extend the
>
> vote
>
> for a couple more days to allow the last 2 to vote if they want. Nobody
>
> else
>
> will change their vote, but those 2 should not be disenfranchised by the
> holiday/moving/miscommunication.
> Jacqueline
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John L [mailto:johnl at iecc.com <johnl at iecc.com>]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 14:10
> To: At-Large Worldwide
> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Election of the ALAC Liaison to the ICANN Board of
> Directors - result ?
>
> I would propose that with 87% of the committee voting, that indeed we
> have not only a quorum - but a super quorum at that. ...
>
>
> If there's only two votes left, can they change the result?  If not,
> there's no point to waiting.
>
> R's,
> John
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.3/986 - Release Date: 9/3/2007
> 09:31
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.3/986 - Release Date: 9/3/2007
> 09:31
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> --
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070910/34d4c173/attachment.html