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

toml at communisphere.com toml at communisphere.com
Sun Jul 21 18:34:41 UTC 2013


What I am trying to say is that incumbents will better know and trust a known player. Amopholy (sp?), might describe the human response that Option 4 draws upon. There are both good and bad associated with this. Random is life.


T9m Lowenhaupt

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
Date: Jul 21, 2013 10:54 AM
To: toml at communisphere.com
CC: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org

Not sure I really understand the "new visions" issue. That should be <br/>more relevant when candidates are being nominated. If we come to a <br/>tie, both candidates have a lot of support among the electorate. The <br/>three ALAC members are effectively just and odd number of people who <br/>are likely readily available, based in the region and not one of the <br/>candidates (note that the general case, the rule would have to factor <br/>in the case where an ALAC member is one of one of the candidates but <br/>that is not of concern in this election).<br/><br/>Can you explain how a coin toss or random number generator would <br/>factor in new visions??<br/><br/>Alan<br/><br/>At 21/07/2013 09:02 AM, toml at communisphere.com wrote:<br/>>Yes, as Joly guessed I am on vacation, but am mystified by the blank <br/>>messages. Here's hoping cell does better.<br/>><br/>>My truncated election comment was that option #1 Ramdom was best. <br/>>Reason being that #4 woul tend to knock out new visions.<br/>><br/>>Best ans sorry for the blanks,<br/>><br/>>Tom<br/>><br/>><br/>><br/>>------ Original Message --------<br/>>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection<br/>>From: "Eduardo Diaz, PE" <eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com><br/>>Date: Jul 20, 2013 3:23 PM<br/>>To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca><br/>>CC: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org<br/>><br/>>I like option 4.<br/>><br/>>-ed<br/>><br/>>Please pardon any errors. I am sending this from my IPhone and have <br/>>big fingers.<br/>><br/>>On Jul 20, 2013, at 9:01 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:<br/>><br/>> > In thinking about what kind of rule we could create to ensure <br/>> that we do not have ties, this is what I came up with and it has <br/>> the support of Evan and Garth (Eduardo was reachable)<br/>> ><br/>> > We need to cover the situation of more than the situation where <br/>> there are more than two candidates, but the immediate situation is <br/>> not that complex.<br/>> ><br/>> > On consultation with a number of people, we came up with four <br/>> alternatives of what to do if there was a tie in a race for a RALO leaders.<br/>> ><br/>> > 1. Random selection.<br/>> > 2. RALO Chair casts a second vote<br/>> > 3. ALAC Chair casts a vote<br/>> > 4. The three ALAC members from North America cast a secret vote, <br/>> without the option to abstain.<br/>> ><br/>> > Option 1 is a common solution and is easy. I could live with <br/>> this, but I would prefer that we not use random choice to select our leaders.<br/>> ><br/>> > Option 2 is probably a good choice for the case of Secretariat, <br/>> since the Chair will have to work closely with the winner. However, <br/>> I find it problematic in the case of a Chair election where the <br/>> incumbent is running again, since that puts the Chair in the <br/>> position of selecting him/herself. Also, I am uncomfortable with <br/>> introducing this new process without the candidates knowing about <br/>> it at the start.<br/>> ><br/>> > Option 3 is probably reasonable, but I would prefer that if we go <br/>> this way, we decide on it on an all-region basis (that is, to have <br/>> the ALAC Chair intercede in a RALO selection process).<br/>> ><br/>> > Option 4 keeps the decision in the region and I find it the most <br/>> palatable option certainly in the short term.<br/>> ><br/>> > Based on comments, I would be happy to draw up an amendment to <br/>> our operating procedures.<br/>> ><br/>> > Alan<br/>> ><br/>> ><br/>> ><br/>> > At 20/07/2013 02:16 AM, you wrote:<br/>> >> Dear All,<br/>> >><br/>> >> The election for NARALO Secretariat (candidates: Darlene <br/>> Thompson and Glenn McKnight) has resulted in a tie vote.<br/>> >><br/>> >> NARALO Operating Principles do not cover this eventuality. <br/>> At-Large Staff has consulted with available ALAC Members from the <br/>> region as well as the NARALO Chair on what process to use to <br/>> address the situation.<br/>> >><br/>> >> The consensus is that the vote for Secretariat should be rerun, <br/>> but prior to that, NARALO must amend its rules to ensure that on <br/>> the re-vote, the possibility of a tie in officer selections is addressed.<br/>> >><br/>> >> Regards,<br/>> >><br/>> >> Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, <br/>> Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC<br/>> >> E-mail: <br/>> staff at atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org><mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org><mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org>><br/>> >> ------<br/>> >> NA-Discuss mailing list<br/>> >> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org<br/>> >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss<br/>> >><br/>> >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org<br/>> >> ------<br/>> ><br/>> > ------<br/>> > NA-Discuss mailing list<br/>> > NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org<br/>> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss<br/>> ><br/>> > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org<br/>> > ------<br/>>------<br/>>NA-Discuss mailing list<br/>>NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org<br/>>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss<br/>><br/>>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org<br/>>------<br/><br/>------<br/>NA-Discuss mailing list<br/>NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org<br/>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss<br/><br/>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org<br/>------<br/>

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list