AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large Priority Activities - 2022

Proposal by Pastor Peters OMORAGBON

In line with the resolution of the WG on the ROP at today's meeting for a draft resolution IN SUPPORT of weighted voting in AFRALO, I submit below, a draft for the consideration of the WG.

WEIGHTED VOTING means one vote by one country as opposed to one vote by each ALS from one country.


1. The resolution if adopted would bring about a cohesion of the various ALS(s) in each country thereby creating room for a common platform on any issue. This will in turn build collaboration and unity as opposed to the present trend where ALSs from the same country are working at cross purposes.
2. It will prevent any country having the largest number of ALSs from pursuing an agenda beneficial to her interest ALONE as opposed to the benefit of the region-meaning influencing decisions to their own advantage
3. Weighted voting will build and reinforce democratic practice within each country as decisions to be proposed by it would first be discussed and agreed upon by a majority before it is presented to AFRALO. This practice would transcend to their contributions at both regional and global meetings.
4. This platform will also encourage stronger ALSs to identify the needs of lesser ones with a view to helping build institutional capacity.
5. Will give room for the ALS to co-organize programs to promote ICANN at a national level as opposed to the present local activities by any ALS which will attract ICANN funding since it wears the toga of nationalism.

METHODOLOGY:

The Secretariat of AFRALO would act as a coordinating centre for all the ALS. It will be the responsibility of the secretariat to link all the ALSs together in any country, give general guidelines for their operations and once a national structure evolve, the Country representative will now act as liaison between AFRALO and their countries. This is without prejudice to prevailing rule of engagement between AFRALO and all ALSs. But on issues that requires voting, AFRALO will require any decision taken by the Country to be relayed to it through the Country Rep AFTER due process of discussion and voting by all the ALS in that country. This will reduce the workload on the Secretariat and save time on discussions and decisions on issues of regional interest. PLEASE THIS IS JUST A DRAFT. LET EVERYONE ADD OR EDIT TO THE BENEFIT OF AFRALO.
Thanks. 

Comment by Tijani BEN JEMAA (inline)

WEIGHTED VOTING means one vote by one country as opposed to one vote by each ALS from one country.

  1. The resolution if adopted would bring about a cohesion of the various ALS(s) in each country thereby creating room for a common platform on any issue. This will in turn build collaboration and unity as opposed to the present trend where ALSs from the same country are working at cross purposes.

    While collaboration and dialogue are always beneficial, I don’t think that obliging all ALSes of a country to have the same opinion is a democratic approach. We need the diversity in the same country. We are an individual end-users organization and not a national end-users one. The aim is not creating country position that may create big tensions between conflicted countries (and there are a lot in our continent unfortunately).    

  2. It will prevent any country having the largest number of ALSs from pursuing an agenda beneficial to its interest ALONE as opposed to the benefit of the region-meaning influencing decisions to their own advantage

          Absolutely; this is the main goal, and this was applied in LACRALO since long and still is.


Proposal by Tijani BEN JEMAA

  1. To prevent any country having the largest number of ALSes from pursuing an agenda beneficial to its own interest as opposed to the benefit of the region, and avoid that it influences decisions to its own advantage, 

  2. The vote of each ALS in a country will be weighted according to the total number of certified ALSes in that country.

  3. The system of the vote weighting shall be so that the sum of the weight of all ALSes in a country is equal to 1

  4. Considering Country A where there are “n” ALSes; the Vote weight for each ALS in that country is equal to 1/n
  • No labels

7 Comments

  1. Beran Dondeh Gillen

    I agree with Tijani. This is a more democratic approach and allows all voices to be heard and a fair chance in the decision making as well. We are representing end users and all voices must be heard. I am afraid that going with Peters suggestions might actually do what we are trying to run away from in the first place, which is to force some ALSs to stick with the majority though that may not necessarily be their stance. 

     

    Just my two cents.

  2. Abdelaziz Hilali

    The objectives and concerns may differ between ALS from same country.
    In my opinion, ALS should to express their opinions independently of other ALS in their country.
    I agree with the proposal 1 / n as the weight of an ALS Vote if n is the number of ALS from from the same country

    Aziz

  3. Fatimata Seye Sylla

    I am putting here the mail I sent on November 21 about the Weighted Vote.  Please read below:

     

    Hello All,

    I have read again Peters' draft and really we thank him for the great work.  As I stated during our last meeting, eventhough I like the rational, I am concerned about our ability to make all ALS from one country agree to unanimously to vote one way or another.
    I therefore support Tijani's proposal.

    Thank you all and best,

    Fatimata

  4. Seun Ojedeji

    I am sorry for coming late into this show, but I find it difficult to agree on why we even need this in the first place. The fact that the total ALSes is summed up and then weighted under the factor of 1 makes it a problem for me as that will have an implication on the strength of the vote of an ALS.

     

    From your explanation of 1/n, it could also mean that countries with fewer ALS will have more weighting than those with more ALS. Again I am of a strong preference that we do not make use of such weighting at this time. I will actually like to hear the problem we are trying to address with this proposal. Are we concerned that a country may be the one always making decision because they have more ALSes(as Tijani stated above)? if that is the concern, yes its understandable but i don't think that should worry us. If indeed we can have such thing happen (even though i know its almost impossible) then it will be a good news and will imply we have more participation.

     

    Overall ALSes should not be treated based on their country affiliation they should be seen as a part of the AFRALO/Africa region. If a country has more ALS, it should challenge the other countries to get more as well (or show the obvious that the countries are not equal hence it's a normal thing) and we should avoid trying to play/fix this politically.

     

    That said, If the group will not agree with my suggestion to not do this in its entirety, can we just please make "n" the total number of ALSes in a country that cast a vote. At least that will reduce the level of discrimination that I fear may be caused by this weighing system. 

    Regards

  5. Baudouin Schombe

    PLEASE LET ME REPEAT AGAIN Hello, The application for membership in Afralo is made by organization, regardless of the number of requests from a country. Is it necessary, then, when it comes to voting, to restrict the participation of the Als of a country in the vote because they are numerous? I find that illogical. Als are counted globally within Afralo and when it comes to voting, each Als has the right to participate in the vote. With respect to the number of activity reports, I do not see why there are any concerns. Whether it is one or two reports, it is possible to make a mid-term report even if within 6 months the Als could not develop any activity. A summary of one or two pages can be used as elements of appreciations. We happen to pass through idle times.

  6. Seun Ojedeji

    Hello,

    Since we have not made much progress with getting this group to discuss this particular document. I will suggest the following disclaimer be added on this page:

    "THIS DOCUMENT ACHIEVED CONSENSUS WITHIN THE WORKING GROUP MEMBERS IN 2014 BUT WASN'T DISCUSSED WITH THE MEMBERS THAT JOINED IN 2016 HENCE NO CONSENSUS CHECK OF THE ENTIRE GROUP WAS ACHIEVED"

    Regards

  7. Tijani Ben Jemaa

    Agreed.

    This remark will be made for the issue of weighted vote only