[NA-Discuss] Building consensus on dealing with the election tie

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Aug 1 01:41:21 UTC 2013


Thank you Garth.

I am preparing a set of amendments to our Operating procedures which 
will be read shortly.

Alan

At 31/07/2013 08:55 PM, Garth Bruen wrote:
>Folks,
>
>I've stayed out of this thread as long as possible to ensure a good
>discussion. However, here are my thoughts.
>
>First, on sharing the post. I do not believe the community can or should
>make the two candidates share the post. I think it is up to the two
>candidates to reach an agreement on their own for doing that. Since there
>are no documented guidelines for who would do what in a shared post I would
>rather not throw two people into untested waters. In general, I am not
>opposed to the concept, but it needs to be clearly structured.
>
>Second, on the tie breaker. I feel like letting the Chair pick is like
>giving one person two votes, not in favor of it. I don't like flipping a
>coin because the loser and their supporters will always feel cheated.
>Letting the ALAC chair decide may sound like a good idea, the ALAC Chair may
>not always know enough about a particular region's needs to choose wisely.
>So, that leaves the NARALO ALAC members with a tie-breaking vote. I believe
>this last option is the wisest and most democratic.
>
>-Garth
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>[mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glenn
>McKnight
>Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 6:43 PM
>Cc: NARALO Discussion List
>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Building consensus on dealing with the election
>tie
>
>Hi
>Upon careful consideration of the plus and minuses  of a shared position for
>secretariat, on paper it appears a good compromise  but in reality it tends
>not to work well.  I choice not to share the position for numerous reasons.
>I am sure  NARALO will survive with either winner of a relection.
>.
>As stated I  rather see the results of a reelection  for the position
>
>Glenn.
>
>Glenn McKnight
>mcknight.glenn at gmail.com
>skype  gmcknight
>twitter gmcknight
>.
>
>
>On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Gordon Chillcott <gordontc at look.ca> wrote:
>
> > After some thought, I' for another vote as well.
> >
> > Gordon
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 15:43 -0400, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
> > > +1
> > >
> > > On 7/31/2013 3:19 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
> > > > I'm with Eduardo. Another vote.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Eduardo Diaz
> > > > <eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com>wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I will go for another vote. If there is another draw, then the
> > > >> three
> > ALAC
> > > >> members from the region will move into action. However, since
> > > >> this
> > not in
> > > >> any rules we should reach consensus on this (on any other
> > > >> solution)
> > before
> > > >> executing. I do not believe sharing is a good option.
> > > >>
> > > >> -ed
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Thompson, Darlene <
> > DThompson1 at gov.nu.ca
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>> Ah, good question Alan,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> As we have been discussing for a while, there are quite a few
> > > >>> areas
> > in
> > > >> our
> > > >>> Rules of Procedure that need to be updated.  So, I am thinking
> > > >>> that
> > if we
> > > >>> put a lot of time into a robust set of rules for this one
> > > >>> matter,
> > then we
> > > >>> will have to address all of the other matters later.  This will
> > prolong
> > > >> the
> > > >>> discussions on the list interminably on procedural matters.
> > > >>> This
> > would
> > > >> be
> > > >>> a real distraction from the actual policy work that the NARALO
> > should be
> > > >>> focusing on.  For that reason, I would be more in favour of
> > > >>> dealing
> > with
> > > >>> changes to the RoP all at once.  So, I am leaning towards
> > > >>> getting
> > this
> > > >>> election over with and then a small subset can concentrate on
> > re-drafting
> > > >>> the RoP for the NARALO's consideration while the rest of the
> > > >>> group
> > can
> > > >>> continue with important policy work.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I am also seeing now that the problem with option #3 - sharing
> > > >>> of
> > work -
> > > >>> could be problematic if one of the candidates has no desire to do
>so.
> > > >>   The
> > > >>> RALO cannot really force this.  The Rules of Procedure already
> > > >>> ALLOW
> > for
> > > >>> it, so perhaps we need to have an either/or going forward.  IF
> > > >>> the
> > tied
> > > >>> parties agree to work together, allow it.  If not, then option
> > > >>> #1
> > (random
> > > >>> selection) or #2 (vote by NARALO ALAC members) should be undertaken.
> > > >>   This
> > > >>> would have to be something that the group would need to decide
> > > >>> on
> > prior
> > > >> to
> > > >>> re-holding the election although most seem to be leaning towards #2.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I have already indicated my preferences in the above, so this is
> > > >> something
> > > >>> that the group needs to decide.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> D
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Darlene A. Thompson
> > > >>> CAP Administrator
> > > >>> N-CAP/Department of Education
> > > >>> P.O. Box 1000, Station 910
> > > >>> Iqaluit, NU  X0A 0H0
> > > >>> Phone:  (867) 975-5631
> > > >>> Fax:  (867) 975-5610
> > > >>> dthompson at gov.nu.ca
> > > >>> ________________________________________
> > > >>> From: Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca]
> > > >>> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 3:50 PM
> > > >>> To: Thompson, Darlene; Bob Bruen; Thomas Lowenhaupt
> > > >>> Cc: NARALO Discussion List
> > > >>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Building consensus on dealing with the
> > > >>   election
> > > >>> tie
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Thanks Darlene. There is no question that we need a obust set of
> > > >>> rules that can handle situations such as this. The only
> > > >>> immediate question, as I outlined in my earlier note, is do we
> > > >>> need them for THIS election.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Alan
> > > >>>
> > > >>> At 27/07/2013 03:18 PM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
> > > >>>> Thank you Bob,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Along this line, when NARALO was still new and nobody really
> > > >>>> knew what they were doing, Luc and I did just fine sharing
> > > >>>> responsibilities.  We e-mailed back and forth a lot and just
> > > >>>> decided between us who would do what.  It was pretty easy.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> NARALO has now grown a lot, as have the people within it.  Each
> > > >>>> person brings their own talents and skills to the table.  I
> > > >>>> think that Glenn and my talents are diverse enough that we
> > > >>>> should be able to divvy up the workload and actually be able to
> > > >>>> grow more initiatives for the region - each taking the lead in
> > > >>>> what they prefer or where their skills are.  I am quite
> > > >>>> flexible and would, of course, do everything I can to make it
> > > >>>> work - as I always do.  I do not think that we need the job to
> > > >>>> be "codified" as it is constantly changing as per the needs of the
>group.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Having said that, I would also be in favour of the tie-breaker
> > > >>>> solution offered by the 3 ALAC members but my preference will
> > > >>>> always be to try to grow and expand the talent pool in the region.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> D
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Darlene A. Thompson
> > > >>>> CAP Administrator
> > > >>>> N-CAP/Department of Education
> > > >>>> P.O. Box 1000, Station 910
> > > >>>> Iqaluit, NU  X0A 0H0
> > > >>>> Phone:  (867) 975-5631
> > > >>>> Fax:  (867) 975-5610
> > > >>>> dthompson at gov.nu.ca
> > > >>>> ________________________________________
> > > >>>> From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > >>>> [na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Bob
> > > >>>> Bruen [bruen at coldrain.net]
> > > >>>> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:24 PM
> > > >>>> To: Thomas Lowenhaupt
> > > >>>> Cc: NARALO Discussion List
> > > >>>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Building consensus on dealing with
> > > >>>> the
> > > >> election
> > > >>> tie
> > > >>>> Hi,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Darlene has been at this job for long enough to know what to
> > > >>>> do. I
> > > >> expect
> > > >>>> that she and Glenn could figure out how to share the
> > responsibilities,
> > > >>>> then let us know. They are both reasonable adults. If there is
> > > >>>> a
> > > >> problem,
> > > >>>> I am sure the Chair could be helpful in settling it.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>                --bob
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Sat, 27 Jul 2013, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> I think the shared responsibility can work. But we must define
> > > >> specific
> > > >>>>> responsibilities and metrics for each co-secretary.  These
> > > >>>>> metrics
> > > >>> will be
> > > >>>>> quite helpful when the next election comes along, at least in
> > > >>>> evaluating the
> > > >>>>> performance of the cos.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Tom Lowenhaupt
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On 7/27/2013 11:37 AM, Skuce, Allan wrote:
> > > >>>>>> I still prefer #3. What an opportunity to grow, lead by
> > > >>>>>> example,
> > and
> > > >>> deal
> > > >>>>>> with the great workload. Cheers, Allan
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Dharma Dailey
> > > >>>>>> <dharma.dailey at gmail.com>wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Have we reached clarity on whether folks feel the job can be
> > > >> shared?
> > > >>>   The
> > > >>>>>>> last message from Glenn, I recall, was along the lines of
> >  "looking
> > > >>> into
> > > >>>>>>> it."  It might be easier on all parties if some of the
> > > >>>>>>> details
> > were
> > > >>>>>>> discussed before hand so no one is surprised re: who is
> > > >>>>>>> doing
> > what.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Dharma
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Jul 26, 2013, at 6:44 PM, "Thompson, Darlene" <
> > > >>> DThompson1 at GOV.NU.CA>
> > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Hi all,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I would like to encourage all NARALO members to consider
> > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > >> options
> > > >>>>>>> that Evan has posited below and respond to same.  Without
> > consensus
> > > >>> we
> > > >>>>>>> cannot move forward on this issue.
> > > >>>>>>>> Thank you for your time on this!
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> D
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Darlene A. Thompson
> > > >>>>>>>> CAP Administrator
> > > >>>>>>>> N-CAP/Department of Education P.O. Box 1000, Station 910
> > > >>>>>>>> Iqaluit, NU  X0A 0H0
> > > >>>>>>>> Phone:  (867) 975-5631
> > > >>>>>>>> Fax:  (867) 975-5610
> > > >>>>>>>> dthompson at gov.nu.ca
> > > >>>>>>>> ________________________________________
> > > >>>>>>>> From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [
> > > >>>>>>> na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of
> > > >>>>>>> Evan
> > > >>>> Leibovitch [
> > > >>>>>>> evan at telly.org]
> > > >>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 4:44 PM
> > > >>>>>>>> To: NARALO Discussion List
> > > >>>>>>>> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Building consensus on dealing with
> > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>> election tie
> > > >>>>>>>> Hello all,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I would like to suggest conducting a poll of NARALO members
> > > >>>>>>>> on
> > the
> > > >>> best
> > > >>>>>>> way
> > > >>>>>>>> to deal with the tie for Secretariat resulting from the
> > > >>> recently-held
> > > >>>>>>> vote.
> > > >>>>>>>> While we need to revise our regulations regarding
> > > >>>>>>>> tie-breaking,
> > we
> > > >>> have
> > > >>>>>>> an
> > > >>>>>>>> immediate need to resolve the current situation before the
> > > >>>>>>>> next
> > > >>> ICANN
> > > >>>>>>>> meeting.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Based on discussions I have heard to date, there are three
> > > >>>>>>>> paths
> > > >> to
> > > >>>>>>>> resolving this that have received some interest:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>     1. Random tie-break
> > > >>>>>>>>     The votes for ALSs and unaffiliated members is re-held,
> > > >>>>>>>> and
> > the
> > > >>> rules
> > > >>>>>>>>     are modified. If another tie results, the tie is broken
> > > >>>>>>>> by a
> > > >>> random
> > > >>>>>>> method,
> > > >>>>>>>>     supervised by at least two non-candidate members and/or
> > > >> At-Large
> > > >>>>>>>> staff.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>     2. Tie-break by NA-Region ALAC members
> > > >>>>>>>>     The votes for ALSs and unaffiliated members is re-held
> > > >>>>>>>> and
> > he
> > > >>> rules
> > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > >>>>>>>>     modified. If another tie results, the tie is broken by
> > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > >>> consensus
> > > >>>>>>> achieved
> > > >>>>>>>>     in private by the three ALAC members for North America
> > (Alan,
> > > >>> Eduardo
> > > >>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>     myself). Since there are three of us, no deadlock is
> > > >>>>>>>> allowed
> > > >>> there
> > > >>>>>>>>     3. Shared Secretariat
> > > >>>>>>>>     No new election is held, and NARALO declares both
> > > >>>>>>>> Darlene
> > > >>>> and Glenn as
> > > >>>>>>>>     co-Secretariats. While there is no precedent for this
> > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>> NARALO, there
> > > >>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>>     elsewhere in ICANN At-Large (both co-Chair and
> > co-Secretariats
> > > >>> have
> > > >>>>>>> been
> > > >>>>>>>>     done in other regions). The two would alternate travel
> > > >>>>>>>> to
> > ICANN
> > > >>>>>>> meetings
> > > >>>>>>>>     (though both would naturally be at the Summit in
> > > >>>>>>>> London). In
> > > >> the
> > > >>> case
> > > >>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>     any of the North American At-Large leadership cannot
> > > >>>>>>>> attend
> > a
> > > >>> meeting
> > > >>>>>>>>     (Chair, travel-designated secretariat or ALAC member),
> > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>> "non-travelling"
> > > >>>>>>>>     secretariat member would automatically be designated to
> > > >>>>>>>> take
> > > >> that
> > > >>>>>>> travel
> > > >>>>>>>>     allocation. The rules may still be modified in case of
> > future
> > > >>> ties,
> > > >>>>>>>> but
> > > >>>>>>>>     such action is not required immediately.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> So I am proposing that, in advance of the next NARALO call,
> > > >>>>>>>> we
> > > >>> could do
> > > >>>>>>> an
> > > >>>>>>>> informal poll of members (by Bigpulse or Doodle) to gain a
> > > >>>>>>>> sense
> > > >> of
> > > >>>>>>>> preferences between these options that may help guide a
> > > >>>>>>>> regional
> > > >>>>>>> consensus
> > > >>>>>>>> on the August call.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Is this a workable plan? Are the options above a valid
> > > >>> representation of
> > > >>>>>>>> the ones discussed? (There are some other tie-break methods
> > > >>>>>>>> I
> > have
> > > >>>>>>>> eliminated because of lack of support to date).
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I admit that when I started thinking about the tie I had
> > > >>>>>>>> not
> > given
> > > >>> any
> > > >>>>>>>> thought to the shared secretariat idea, but it has grown on
> > > >>>>>>>> me
> > > >>> since.
> > > >>>>>>> There
> > > >>>>>>>> is a significant amount of work to do, and it would be IMO
> > > >>>>>>>> a
> > shame
> > > >>> to
> > > >>>>>>> force
> > > >>>>>>>> an all-or-nothing tiebreak on two people with both popular
> > > >>>> support and an
> > > >>>>>>>> eagerness to do the job.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> - Evan
> > > >>>>>>>> ------
> > > >>>>>>>> NA-Discuss mailing list
> > > >>>>>>>> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.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
> > > >>>>> ------
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>> --
> > > >>>> Dr. Robert Bruen
> > > >>>> Cold Rain Labs
> > > >>>> http://coldrain.net/bruen
> > > >>>> +1.802.579.6288
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> ------
> > > >>>> 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
> > > >>> ------
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is
> > > >> confidential
> > and/or
> > > >> subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the
> > > >> named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you
> > > >> must not
> > use,
> > > >> disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received
> > > >> this
> > email by
> > > >> mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message
>immediately.
> > > >> ------
> > > >> 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
> > ------
> >
>------
>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