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

Thomas Lowenhaupt toml at communisphere.com
Sat Jul 27 15:59:40 UTC 2013

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

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list