[NA-Discuss] Building consensus on dealing with the election tie
Thompson, Darlene
DThompson1 at GOV.NU.CA
Sun Jul 28 02:06:56 UTC 2013
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
>------
More information about the NA-Discuss
mailing list