[NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection
toml at communisphere.com
toml at communisphere.com
Sun Jul 21 22:23:10 UTC 2013
At the IGC we use RFC 3797, which seems to provide suitable randomness.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] VOTE RESULTS: 2013 NARALO Secretary Selection
From: Jean Polly <netmom at gmail.com>
Date: Jul 21, 2013 4:55 PM
To: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
CC: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
I think the election should just be held again.
If it comes up as a tie I think we should do the thing that is most transparent.
Random isn't transparent, so that is out. If I had to pick one I would go with number four, because it demands the will of at least two people to win.
On Jul 20, 2013, at 3:01 AM, Alan Greenberg 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.
> 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
>> E-mail: staff at atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org><mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org<mailto: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
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