*Hello All,* * * *in my initial email which started off the discussion on this list (30 August), I remarked:* "As a member of the ALAC, I am concerned that any ambiguity regarding the process might give rise to questions about the transparency and fairness of designations. This, in turn, would harm the credibility of the ALAC as the natural home of the general Internet user." *Since then, there have been many useful comments and recommendations, and action has been taken. Let me offer my own take on this:* * * *- I have sometimes had the impression that the weight of by-laws and rules, and their interpretation, was such that improvement could only be achieved as an exception. This NomCom exercise has shown the contrary to be possible.* * * *- Our Chair has just issued a call for a new vote: it's interesting to note that it took us only two weeks to get here. Congratulations to all!* * * *- A concluding remark: a**t different times, and depending on the topic, each of us can sound the alarm, do research, draft, propose action. The work we have just gone through on the designation of representatives to the NomCom is a good example of this approach. It is flexible, and remains open. * * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques.* * * * * * * * * 2012/9/14 ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org>
TRADUCCION MENSAJE EN ESPANOL A CONTINUACION
Estimados todos ,
Como todos saben, nos hemos enfrentado a una situación sin precedentes en el reciente voto para elegir a los delegados votantes ante el NomCom para el 2013.
Nuestros Estatutos incorporan reglas para las Elecciones de Candidato. Estas reglas son validas para la elección de todos los oficiales del ALAC, incluidos los delegados ante el NomCom. La Regla 10.4 especifica que un "voto instantáneo de desempate " será usado como el sistema de voto para determinar al ganador. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
la Regla 10.5 especifica que los electores clasifican a *todos* los candidatos en orden de preferencia.
Esto significa que el tipo de voto instantáneo de desempate requerido es el de "preferencia total " de voto. No permite la selección de solamente un candidato.
Desafortunadamente, el sistema de voto de Bigpulse fue programado para permitir la elección de solo un candidato y algunos electores así lo hicieron.
Como resultado, el voto vulnero la regla 10.5 y por ello es nula e invalida.
Ya que tenemos que elegir a alguien tan pronto como sea posible, he instruido al staff a que empiece un nuevo voto el cual se adherida estrictamente a nuestros Estatutos. Como resultado, el voto requerirá que *todos * los candidatos sean puestos en orden, y que el sistema de votos de BigPulse sea programado para no aceptar votos parciales.
También notaran que no hay opción "ninguno de los anteriores " ya que ello no es exigido por nuestros Estatutos.
Entonces, las únicas opciones que los miembros del ALAC tendrán para votar serán:
Candidato A - 1 Candidato B - 2
o
Candidato A - 2 Candidato B - 1
o
Se abstiene - 1
Sé que hay otras opciones que podrían ser posibles con " preferencia parcial del voto instantáneo de desempate " pero nuestros Estatutos no lo permiten.
Si tienen preguntas, estaré encantado de responderlas. Una lección aprendida es que necesitamos asegurarnos nuestro re-escrito de las reglas del ALAC de Procedimientos es bastante clara acerca de como se cuentan los votos y que tipo de sistema de votos es usado.
Una vez mas, mis disculpas por la confusión que esto ha causado.
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair
-----Original Message----- From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [mailto:ocl@gih.com] Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 2:30 AM To: 'ALAC Internal List'; ALAC Working List Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff Subject: Follow-up: ALAC Voting Delegates to the NomCom for 2013
Dear all,
as you all know, we have been faced with an unprecedented situation in the recent vote to select voting delegates to the NomCom for 2013.
Our Bylaws incorporate rules for the Candidate Elections. These rules are valid for the election of all ALAC officers, including delegates to the NomCom. Rule 10.4 specifies that "Instant-runoff" voting is to be used as the voting system to determine the winner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
Rule 10.5 specifies that voters rank *all* candidates in order of preference.
This means that the type of instant-runoff voting required is "full preference" voting. It does not allow for the selection of only one candidate.
Unfortunately, the Bigpulse system was programmed to allow for the selection of only one candidate, and some voters did so.
As a result, the vote broke rule 10.5 and is therefore null and void.
Because we need to select someone as quickly as possible, I have instructed staff to start a new vote which will closely follow our Bylaws. As a result, the vote will ask for *all* candidates to be placed in order, and the BigPulse system will be programmed to refuse partial votes. You will also note that there is no "none of the above" option since this is not mandated in our bylaws.
So the only options ALAC members will have to vote will be:
Candidate A - 1 Candidate B - 2
or
Candidate A - 2 Candidate B - 1
or
Abstain - 1
I know that there are other possible choices that could be possible with "partial preference instant-runoff voting" but our Bylaws do NOT allow it.
If you have any questions, I would be happy to reply to them. One lesson learnt is that we need to make sure our re-write of the ALAC Rules of Procedures is quite clear about how votes are to be counted and what type of voting system is used.
Once again, apologies for the confusion this has caused.
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair
_______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal
ALAC Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org