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

gbruen at knujon.com gbruen at knujon.com
Sat Jul 20 13:46:55 UTC 2013

Let's be sure to insert a clause that prevents an incumbent chair running for re-election from making the selection when the chair is a tie. If the chair is outgoing it should not be an issue. 

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Sender: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 03:01:50 
To: <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection

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.


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.
>Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, 
>Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC
>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
>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org

NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list