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

[Bob Bruen]

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