[NA-Discuss] Building consensus on dealing with the election tie
Thomas Lowenhaupt
toml at communisphere.com
Wed Jul 31 19:43:11 UTC 2013
+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
>> ------
>>
>
>
More information about the NA-Discuss
mailing list