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

Eduardo Diaz eduardodiazrivera at gmail.com
Fri Jul 26 06:39:58 UTC 2013

I suggest a litle variation:

Let both secretariat work in conjunction while the rules are changed and a
new vote is taken. If there ia another tie, then we can do as Evan has


On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> 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
> 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.

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list