[NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection

Robert Guerra rguerra at privaterra.org
Mon Jul 22 15:52:10 UTC 2013


in the case of a tie vote, the options to break the tie should be as close as possible to the electorate. 

In my opinion, I would have rerun the election and ask

- the electorate chose, in a ranked fashion - who should be elected
- in the case of a tie, who folks give their vote to.

regards

Robert

On 2013-07-20, at 3:22 PM, Eduardo Diaz, PE wrote:

> I like option 4. 
> 
> -ed
> 
> Please pardon any errors. I am sending this from my IPhone and have big fingers. 
> 
> On Jul 20, 2013, at 9:01 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> 
>> In thinking about what kind of rule we could create to ensure that we do not have ties, this is what I came up with and it has the support of Evan and Garth (Eduardo was reachable)
>> 
>> We need to cover the situation of more than the situation where there are more than two candidates, but the immediate situation is not that complex.
>> 
>> On consultation with a number of people, we came up with four alternatives of what to do if there was a tie in a race for a RALO leaders.
>> 
>> 1. Random selection.
>> 2. RALO Chair casts a second vote
>> 3. ALAC Chair casts a vote
>> 4. The three ALAC members from North America cast a secret vote, without the option to abstain.
>> 
>> Option 1 is a common solution and is easy. I could live with this, but I would prefer that we not use random choice to select our leaders.
>> 
>> Option 2 is probably a good choice for the case of Secretariat, since the Chair will have to work closely with the winner. However, I find it problematic in the case of a Chair election where the incumbent is running again, since that puts the Chair in the position of selecting him/herself. Also, I am uncomfortable with introducing this new process without the candidates knowing about it at the start.
>> 
>> Option 3 is probably reasonable, but I would prefer that if we go this way, we decide on it on an all-region basis (that is, to have the ALAC Chair intercede in a RALO selection process).
>> 
>> Option 4 keeps the decision in the region and I find it the most palatable option certainly in the short term.
>> 
>> Based on comments, I would be happy to draw up an amendment to our operating procedures.
>> 
>> Alan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> At 20/07/2013 02:16 AM, you wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>> 
>>> The election for NARALO Secretariat (candidates: Darlene Thompson and Glenn McKnight) has resulted in a tie vote.
>>> 
>>> NARALO Operating Principles do not cover this eventuality. At-Large Staff has consulted with available ALAC Members from the region as well as the NARALO Chair on what process to use to address the situation.
>>> 
>>> The consensus is that the vote for Secretariat should be rerun, but prior to that, NARALO must amend its rules to ensure that on the re-vote, the possibility of a tie in officer selections is addressed.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC
>>> E-mail: staff at atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org%3cmailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org>>
>>> ------
>>> NA-Discuss mailing list
>>> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>>> 
>>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>>> ------
>> 
>> ------
>> NA-Discuss mailing list
>> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>> 
>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
>> ------
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
> 
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------



More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list