[NA-Discuss] Voting Update

[Robert Guerra]

Ted:

comments below.

On 5-Jun-07, at 8:59 AM, Ted Ernst wrote:

> Sorry, I used the wrong email address to send this the first time.
>
> On 6/4/07, Ted Ernst <ted at chicagohumanist.org > wrote:
> I (Ted Ernst representing Emerging Futures Network) abstain on the  
> Draft Operating Principles at this time.  I'm still unclear on much  
> of what we're doing, and how voting works.
>
> Some questions:
> 1.)  What are the boundaries of our region?  I ask because I see we  
> use English and French, which presumably covers USA and Canada, but  
> not Spanish, which tells me Mexico is not in our region.  Is this  
> correct?


The information regarding regions and what countries are included is  
well documented on the ICANN website (URL below). It has been  
mentioned a few times on this list and in some of the teleconferences.

That being said, as you and others are newcomers - thought it would  
be a good idea to list the references and comment.

relevant URL's

(1) Review of ICANN Regions -28 November 2006
	http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-rev-28nov06.htm
(2) Definition of ICANN's Geographic Regions
	http://www.icann.org/yokohama/geo-topic.htm

Countries listed as being included as the "ICANN North american region":

American Samoa
Canada
Guam
Northern Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
United States Minor Outlying Islands
United States
Virgin Islands, U.S.

- Mexico, which is geographically located in north america is part of  
the ICANN Latin American and Caribbean region (which I believes is  
the way Mexico is classified at the United nations)

- Official languages: The USA (as stated by congress) is English,  
Canada's official languages (at a federal level) are English and French

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Canada



> 2.)  70% affirmative vote is required to adopt the Operating  
> Principles.  Is there a time-limit?  Am I free to change my vote  
> anytime before we reach the 70%?

70% is the % that is needed for a rough consensus (see ref below) .  
For the motion on the floor, it specifically means if there is  
"general agreement" to proceed to adopt the proposed Operating  
Procedures for the North American (NA) RALO.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_consensus

Rough consensus is a term used in consensus decision-making to  
indicate the "sense of the group" concerning a particular matter  
under consideration. It has been defined as the "dominant view" of a  
group as determined by its chairperson. The term was first used by  
the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) in describing its  
procedures for working groups. Rough consensus is consistent with  
other models of consensus, such as Quaker-based consensus.

The means to establish rough consensus was described by the IETF  
(1998) as follows:

     Working groups make decisions through a "rough consensus"  
process. IETF consensus does not require that all participants agree  
although this is, of course, preferred. In general, the dominant view  
of the working group shall prevail. (However, it must be noted that  
"dominance" is not to be determined on the basis of volume or  
persistence, but rather a more general sense of agreement). Consensus  
can be determined by a show of hands, humming, or any other means on  
which the WG agrees (by rough consensus, of course). Note that 51% of  
the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is  
better than rough. It is up to the Chair to determine if rough  
consensus has been reached (IETF Working Group Guidelines and  
Procedures).

The creation of at-large RALO's (regional at large structures) were  
envisioned in documents drafted  in 2003 (see url below). The in-trim  
at-large committee and ALS's were formed with the understanding that  
their role was to form RALOs. The bylaws and ALS applications clearly  
mention that. My understanding of the bylaws and ALS application is  
that signing implied that one would be in support of a regional RALO  
being formed. if are an at-large structure, then I hope you  
understood that.

Again, as you are new to the group I am including a few references .

ref:
http://alac.icann.org/framework.htm
http://www.icann.org/montreal/alac-organization-topic.htm

The latin american, african, asia pacific and european regions have  
already formed their regional RALOs. We in north america are the last  
and remaining region  yet to organize to create our own regional  
structure.


> 3.)  Is the document we're currently voting on fixed until is  
> passes or can it be changed in order to satisfy concerns raised  
> during voting?  If it's changed, are previously cast votes void and  
> we start over?
>
The OP needs to be adopted to proceed in the RALO formation  
processes. In a sense, the question to the NA ALS's are "are you ok  
with the spirit of the OP and that we proceed towards a RALO". If so,  
say so.

The numerous discussions on this list and the teleconferences have  
made it clear that the OP is likely to be revised to incorporate  
suggestions and/or improvements after the regional RALO gets formed.


> Sorry for my basic ignorance and newness.  Hopefully I'll catch up  
> soon.
>

I quite understand, it is a complex issue with a great deal of  
history and with some dissenting views.

Though I am in favor of NA RALO formation I do respect the fact that  
that there are dissenting views. It is my belief that their concerns  
and issues can be best dealt from working with the existing  
organizational framework I think more can be achieved working in  
collaboration with other RALOs to effect positive change both within  
At large and ICANN as a whole. Perhaps it is a more Canadian view...

I hope that with my comments and references are helpful.

regards

Robert














-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070605/3e35641c/attachment.html