[At-Large] Fwd: Election of the ALAC Liaison to the ICANN Board ofDirectors - result ?
Nick Ashton-Hart
nick.ashton-hart at icann.org
Mon Sep 10 04:40:00 EDT 2007
Thanks for your note Izumi.
With respect to the vote - Jacqueline was asking for a vote, clearly,
either using the voting tool, or by having individual votes sent to
me personally - there was no question of whether or not there was to
be a vote or not.
You will also I trust recall my note, in reply to Jacqueline, on 6
September, confirming my understanding of Jacqueline calling a vote
and confirming that I would create one; on 7 September I then stated
that I had set one up and in both cases made clear that if I was
operating on old information, due to my having very limited
connectivity, that you should accept my apologies in advance if I was
operating on old information.
As to your note about my not taking elements into consideration and
trying to move you in a direction, nothing could be farther from the
truth. The chair called a vote on two proposals. I followed her
direction, as best I could, and set one up. I confirmed with her in a
telephone call last night that I have been acting as directed by her
throughout this business. It is therefore not accurate to portray me
as in any way interfering or operating in any way improperly.
On the bigger question here: it is entirely normal practice in
meetings that once a vote has been called by the Chair on a question,
a vote proceeds; it is too late to withdraw proposals once the voting
has begun - voting having begun when the vote is called for. It is a
mystery to me how such a basic and fundamental principle of good
order in meetings can have been so completely not understood -
especially since the draft ROPs call for the above as the resolution
to any situation in which consensus is not reached. I would hope that
all Members would carefully review, one further time, the draft ROPs.
If you do so, you will find that much of the debate of the last
several days would actually have been out of order - once voting has
been commenced, debate about the vote is over.
If the ALAC had done what it intended - to conclude the rules of
procedure for conducting its work - in advance of the vote on the
board liaison, then NONE of this to-ing and fro-ing would have
happened. A great deal of time wasted in tendentious emails would
have been avoided. It would seem to me that rather than expending
lots of further time and effort in attempting to place blame on the
staff for following the directions of the chair, all this effort
could now be turned much more profitably to matters such as:
1) Agreeing ROPs so as to avoid another such episode as this one.
2) Discussing how to have a meeting schedule in LA that allows for a
vision for the community to be developed in coordination with the
regional Secretariats, who have asked for funding to attend LA for
just this purpose
3) Discussing current policy issues of concern to the community and
responses to them
Or indeed almost any other subject or task.
Of course, nobody can stop you from continuing this discussion but I
beseech you - please, consider from the outside how this all looks
and ask yourself if the view of the committee it presents is the one
you wish people to see.
On 10 Sep 2007, at 04:28, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> 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]
>> 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 ] 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]
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>
> --
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart
Director, At-Large
ICANN
Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88
USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
Fax: +41 (22) 595 85 44
mobile: +41 (79) 595 54 68
email: nick.ashton-hart at icann.org
Win IM: ashtonhart at hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart at mac.com /
Skype: nashtonhart
Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070910/6ce1013e/attachment.html
More information about the At-large
mailing list