Interpreter: And, Carlos, I liked your comment today, that the ICANN meetings, that supposedly the place where it is going to happen is one of the most safe ones, and then the place where it ends is one of the best ones. So, apparently, that's what they said about Nairobi, so there is a lot of paranoia, apparently, about where this is going to take place.
I mean, that's how it was in India, that's how it was in Cairo, and it seems that Nairobi is in the same conditions now. But, let's not be afraid, though, because fear doesn't bring anything about.
Okay, so Antonio Medina and Jose Luis Barzallo are present.
I mean, this is something that I did want to say. It's good to know this to either be in one of the United Nations headquarters because – especially for the At-Large events. I mean, you know, at the same time it's not good to limit ourselves where we're going to go. I mean, you know, if it is unsafe we have to keep that in mind, but the message is to definitely keep in mind that we have a mission. And we have to give priority to the fact that we have the support of whatever headquarters we're at, and support to whatever places ICANN has involved, and we all agree with that, they say in Spanish.
Very well. Anyway, so let's start. (Inaudible) Anybody else in English so far? Is Heidi going to be here today, do you know? No?
Dev Teelucksingh: I'm not sure. Matthias may have an answer to that.
Interpreter: So, I would suggest, then, well, we have some apologies. Some of the people that are not going to be here, Jose Luis Barzallo did say that he was going to leave before, but he is with us today. Do we have quorum?
Dev Teelucksingh: One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, just barely. Once (inaudible) leaves, then we won't have quorum.
Interpreter: So, then, let's deal with the adoption for the LACRALO pamphlet as the first item, which is .4 on the agenda items, then. So, let's go ahead and reverse the logic of the agenda, in that case, to deal with the priority issues, if it is going to be less of us.
So, then, the LACRALO pamphlet, after everything that we have discussed, it is really just a matter of really congratulating and approving it. I don't think that we should spend too much time on this teleconference on the job that has been extremely successful, and it is something that we will be using as an outreach. Who has got an opinion in regards to that?
And I would like to say, and this is (inaudible) speaking, I mean, I don't know if it's been approved or not. I mean, it's been said that it's going to be done in Portuguese, and I am very grateful to everybody for the support.
And there is a paragraph in the pamphlet that it was approved in Spanish, and there was also a comment in Portuguese, so I definitely think it is good to translate into Spanish now, because I know that there is going to be a Portuguese translation.
So, I would like to know at this time, because the intention is to be printing this in Spanish for the Nairobi meeting, if there is a possibility of also printing it in Portuguese as well for the Nairobi summit – meeting, excuse me. And that was Miss Sylvia Leite, excuse me.
Very well, Sylvia. Yes, I think that is great. I do think it is a wise decision, and Matthias was very detailed in his explanation. So, like I said, it's not something that we need to debate here at this point, though.
But I do call for an approval, because we have this version now and the translations, of course. And can you post that version, please, Andreas, on the Adobe screen? Of course. The agenda as well, please.
So, on the agenda .4, if you see a link, there is a link that says .4, and it will take you to the English version of the LACRALO pamphlet. Because in Adobe we see it as .3. I posted a link, says, Andreas. I posted a link and then, Dev, did you post a link as well?
Dev Teelucksingh: I just posted a link to how it looks, the visual, the image of how it looks, how the brochure looks. And Matthias has posted the Spanish version, the Spanish translation, sorry.
Interpreter: Very well, Dev. So, the version that they've posted is the final version, the one that has the January 4 date. Did we approve it? Does anybody – okay, let's do it like this to make it simpler. Is there anybody that does not agree with this being approved? Otherwise, we will approve it. We should just change that portion about from Portuguese to Spanish, but the rest is perfect. I think we should start using it.
Dev Teelucksingh: My only – this is Dev, actually.
Interpreter: Yes, Dev. Let me go ahead and tell them. Give me one second. And go ahead, Dev.
Dev Teelucksingh: Just one minor thing. It is the website that we should put on the brochure. Should we just put lacralo.org, rather than www.at-large.icann.org/lacralo? Maybe Matthias can advise us on that, whether that is a good thing or not? If (inaudible). And again, that is a very minor thing.
Interpreter: And I don't think it's a huge thing, but I think that www.atlarge.icann/lacralo would be better, because that's the place where we can post very solid information, especially because we have the Wiki and there is a lot of information that keeps changing. And sometimes there isn't updated information versus on the ICANN – well, why don't we just use both, then, says Andres? Well, we could use both.
Dev Teelucksingh: Well, once we are assured that that link does work and we'll point to something concrete, and we have control of that. It's no problem.
Interpreter: Do we approve it? Yes. So, then, definitely a round of applause, then, and let's go to another point on the agenda. It would have been good to have a better picture of the people there, but, all right, we're not going to get into that. I even see wrinkles there.
Dev Teelucksingh: This is Dev. I'm certain, though, what will happen now is, I think proper .pdf will be – electronic .pdf will be uploaded to show the final version, and so if there are any minor corrections that need to be made, then they can always correct, spelling corrections, whatever, they can be made then, before it's all printed. For both the Spanish and the Portuguese and English. Okay? So, let's go ahead.
Interpreter: So, we have had many people discussing many of the issues and there is a good regional consensus of everything that we have been doing, and I want to confirm this, in this teleconference. So, I have taken the task of making some comments, nothing too major, with each of the people on the wide streams, or on the Wiki, and you'll see that on the link there for the voting director.
And I think that – I don't know if there is anybody wants to make any comments on the recommendations for the working group. I think that the working group has excellent recommendations and they have excellent comments, and I would personally approve this recommendation from the working group. But with this arrest thing, I would personally approve the recommendations by the working group, working group one, on this point.
So, like I said, the suggestion on .1, what is the LACRALO position in regards to the mandate election of the voting director? What is your opinion on that?
The recommendation from the working group, if we see the content, for this to last three years, is that what it is? Yes. Always equal terms. And then at the same moment the supporting organization and the people in the supporting organization and their mandates make it equal to that.
We can't hear you anymore, Andres. No, we couldn't hear anything else anymore. And one second, Dev, he got cut off in a moment.
So, three years coinciding with the same members of the board and the support organizations, and a transition period as well to, let's say, to a passing (inaudible) during those dates. I think that is logical, and then consecutive periods as well. That is what they are proposing as well, apparently. Yes.
Dev Teelucksingh: Evan has joined. Just to confirm.
Evan Leibovitch: Just sitting in.
Dev Teelucksingh: Oh, okay. Fine.
Interpreter: I mean, this is something that we've spoken about many times. I know that I spoke to Carlton and to Dev and to Jose Luis Brazallo, with Carlos and with Fatima. So, I don't know what else everybody has to say about this in particular.
But my personal appreciation, the three-year period and then in regards to the possibility of reelection, I made a comment on the Wiki in regards to the possibility of such – see if we could have a certain regional rotation, if you will. That way maybe somebody from another region would be able to, let's say, take over. That would be very beneficial, I think, keeping in mind the seniority, of course, which should be a major point in consideration within the board.
And obviously I do understand that having a certain seniority will make someone have a bit more influence, especially with the users. So, if we do this as a rotation, an obligatory, it will be 15 years for somebody to be able to take over again. So, that is an idea I am not very happy about.
But, I mean, I think that it is something very important and we should take our regional position. Either we limit this or we support this. Or if a person is allowed to do, let's say, three consecutive periods within a 10-year period. So, what do you guys think?
I think – and this is Fatima – if we vote on this, I don't think that somebody would be able to win three times consecutive. I mean, it would be good to put a limit on this possibility as well.
And can I say something. Jose Luis, please go ahead. The truth is, in regards to the duration period, it is reasonable for it to be three years, always keeping in mind, continuing to give stability to our organization, especially with the person that is going to be familiar the way things are managed.
Now, in regards to the reelection, I think that it is reasonable to have an option that the same person can be reelected; however, we should impose a time limit so we have, as well, any quality in participation. Because there are many opinions, many things that are done, but there should be, as well, that option in order to encourage that participation.
So, definitely allow the reelection, especially – so, if a person wants to be reelected once, and let's say this person for some reason is not able to take up that same post, and why am I saying this? Because, you know, if you're six years in the same post, and then when you finish somebody else begins. And then if you get reelected again, when you come back we try to apply the same role. I mean, I don't know how they are going to manage this finally.
Like the presidency in many countries in Latin America, according to the constitutions, and Carlos Aquirre would like to say something about that.
Dev Teelucksingh: I would like to say something else.
Interpreter: Okay, let me go ahead and tell them. Okay. So, then Carlos, and then you go after Dev, okay? I'm sorry, Dev, you go after Carlos, sorry.
Dev Teelucksingh: No problem.
Interpreter: I think that I understand what you are saying, and let me just clarify. So, we're keeping in mind the seniority, then. Do you think that, then, six years? You don't think that's too much then? I mean, I question – I'm sorry, Andres, you said that – no, what I'm saying is, because Alan Greenberg said in his comments, you know, when I spoke about limiting the time, he mentioned a seniority, and he said that there was something about consultation within the board and a certain amount of years, and said that was very important because that would have an important impact, and that was going to have (inaudible) with the board. But if we limit it, then it doesn't happen that way.
So, what does this have to do, then, with seniority? And do you think that with this proposal of six years, this wouldn't make it worse? That is what I wanted to clarify.
I mean, I think that, yes, Andres, personally, I do think that within that three-year period it would be a good time not so much – I think that if a person is given three more years, it's good to be more involved. But then after that it would become too long. At the same time, it would be a good way to refresh a lot of the activities. And also, because it has to do with the obligations that we have as representatives. And also because of the rights of the users.
I do like what you're saying Jose Luis. Carlos, are you on the same line? I'd like to hear your opinion about this as well.
Yes, I am on the same line, but I do want to clarify something else, though. This is Carlos. Specifically, I always oppose what Alan Greenberg says. Alan Greenberg, I think that he is an excellent worker, but many times he sees it from a very closed box. And I also – the fact that if someone has posted – not posted – if somebody is in a position in this way, there is a risk for this to consequently not allow change of opinions or to open the spectrum for more opinions. That's one side.
Also, the entrance in the board, it's not only something that is accomplished through the election as an ALAC representative, but also – it can also happen if you are nominated from NomCom or – so you can get into the board that way.
So, if you – if this becomes where a person becomes very important because of their participation, the point is, there isn't then freedom for their opinions from the At-Large community for that same position. And in order to introduce another person as well.
So, like I said, I agree with the fact that one reelection period is more than enough. Otherwise, three years is (inaudible) too long. Six years is okay if in case the person is elected again.
So, in summary, what you're saying, I think that we all do agree with the same thing, and I definitely support what you just said, and thank you. Dev, please go ahead.
Dev Teelucksingh: Okay. I think that regarding the term of appointment, it should be the same – well, again, keeping it the same period for three years or whatever the new term of – whenever that three-year term changes with other board members and obviously it should be equal to that.
Having said that, I know the concept of having – rotating a position to try to get diversity. Although it sounds a good idea, I think ultimately, though – I think in the end, though, we should just allow the person to serve, and if there is a time of reelection by the end of two years, he could be – he or she could therefore be reelected.
In other words, it's not a mandatory rotation. This is my opinion. Because I think we want the person that will be able to – in two years he or she may not be – may now be settling in and then may require a further two years and you may approve of his or her performance.
So, I don't think it's really a need to actually rotate it because of – to satisfy a regional diversity. Because again, remember, the board member is supposed to represent the global At-Large, not just a regional perspective only. I mean, from a Latin American/Caribbean regional perspective only. It's supposed to be the global Internet – the global At-Large society. So, that's my opinion on that.
Interpreter: Thank you, Dev. Evan, is there something that you would like to say in regards to this, since your in the English channel?
Evan Leibovitch: Hi. First of all, I just intended to come and sit in. I have an interest in this particular discussion because of my involvement through North American region on trying to do this. I don't totally expect to understand Alan Greenberg's thought processes, but at least I can understand with – I can explain some of the rationale behind this.
The only reason that we were working with the idea of a three-year term was to enable somebody, if they had widespread community support, to enable a very senior position with the ICANN board potentially even becoming chair of the ICANN board or a vice-chair. That right now is only happening to people that have a significant amount of seniority.
Now, because of elections, somebody still has to have a very strong mandate from the At-Large community in order to get this far. The idea of having a three-term limit was in case we do have somebody who is very strong, to enable them to serve out that mandate and achieve a very senior position.
Interpreter: And thank you, Evan. And let's clarify. And I think that we definitely agree with that position and we definitely manifested – and we were talking about something more specific. What we sense so far in LACRALO is that the three-year period seems reasonable in that this coincides with the other positions. And so we do with the recommendation for the working group.
So, so far that we definitely agree with. So, we started a more profound discussion coinciding with the Wiki discussions in regards to the reelection of the three-year period. There had been something about no limit on the reelection and that is something that we have been discussing. And so the consensus that point to a balance for the reelection to be allowed, yes, but for any change after two election periods, let's say after six years, which is what seems reasonable.
So, after six years, let's say, to have an alternative. But if the person is reelected after a three-year period, after a person has replaced them, for them to be able to run again.
So, let's say, coinciding with the supporting organization period. So, one reelection after the first term and then the rotation coming in after that second term. So, that's what we were talking about. Do you see what I'm saying now?
Evan Leibovitch: Yes. I was only making the case that in some of the other constituencies such as the GNSO appointed people onto the board, I believe there is a limit of two elections – two reelections rather than one.
Interpreter: So, then, Evan, when you're talking about reelections, are you talking about a nine-year consecutive period?
Evan Leibovitch: That is the conceivable maximum if the person receives a mandate from At-Large in both reelections. I will need to check this. My own concern was being consistent with the other constituencies.
Interpreter: So, what do you think about what we are proposing, then, a six-year maximum, and then the rotation coming in after that. What is your opinion on that?
Evan Leibovitch: I personally have no problem with the six-year limit, but then again, this is LACRALO. I have already had my other forum in which to impose myself.
Dev Teelucksingh: This is Dev again. Is there really a problem with having somebody go beyond the six years for the maximum of three terms, for a total of nine years? I mean, if that person is doing a good job and is consistently solving At-Large issues, and therefore, because that person is getting seniority, he then gets on various committees and so forth. And I think, as I mentioned, potentially even becoming the chair of the ICANN board. Isn't that a desirable thing?
Interpreter: Who else wanted to say something? Antonio Medina. I mean, I think, Andres, I think we've been clear on our position. I think we can move on to the next point. Very well. So, then, that is our position, then. Antonio Medina does want to say something. Antonio, are you still on the line? So, then, let's continue.
So, I think that our position this time is clear. I mean, the people that are interested in having that position – I mean, we go back to the same issue. If the person is doing good work, it's really a matter of seeing how that is affecting or benefiting the organization as well. That's another issue to consider, though. And, thank you, Antonio.
So, let's go, then, to the second issue, and it has to do with what are the qualifications for the director? You know, there was a whole discussion on the recommendations and what has been said not only with NomCom and also comments issued by At-Large, and the final recommendation or the content according to that working group is –
So, you know, adding a specific criteria by At-Large that has to do with, let's see, an understanding from At-Large, or an understanding from the potential impact and ICANN decisions on the global community of users. And a certain experience in being able to go consensus on different interests working on the complicated issues related to policies and that would be a very important requirement.
Now, I think that new criteria is very healthy not only for NomCom, but also by the ICANN positions. I don't know if anybody else has any comments in regards to this, but does somebody want to say something about this?
Andres, this is Fatima. Yes, Fatima, what would you like to say? Yes, I definitely agree with this, in this about the additional criteria. This is something that was discussed previously. Some people were not in agreement. I don't understand why. I think that it's good to impose this supplementary criteria. Dev, any comments?
Dev Teelucksingh: I think one comment on the director qualifications. There was a discussion and the comments mentioned understanding of ICANN At-Large. They were saying that – there was a comment in there that says in the view of some knowledge and involvement with ICANN At-Large is a negative quality and perhaps a very – and that's in bold – negative quality. And I was a little confused by that statement. And I guess I just want to – I don't know if anybody has an understanding what that statement meant. Because, I mean, who is to sum – is it the people within the At-Large saying this? Somebody in other ICANN constituencies? What is that statement? That was my main thing that stood out for me, that query.
Interpreter: Right. You know, I agree with you. It was kind of shady. Does anybody have anything to say about that? Who can evaluate this, because that is an issue that we've brought up many times. I know during ALAC, who is the person that really has the actual capacity in order to say, yes, this person is good or this person is not good, or this person has the qualifications. I think that is very dangerous, personally. But, I mean, in principle I agree with what the document says, but that's a very excellent point and we do need to clarify that point. And we definitely need to be very assertive in regards to this point when we issue our LACRALO statement. Did you want to say something else?
Dev Teelucksingh: (Inaudible)
Evan Leibovitch: I have my hand up, if only because I have actually heard from some of the individuals that expressed the sentiment that was raised in those comments.
There is a small number of people most of whom participated in the previous election where the public actually elected people to the ICANN board. Some of these people believe that At-Large in general is not the best representation for the general public to ICANN, and have made the point within – certainly within NARALO, that this particular director should actually be picked from outside the At-Large infrastructure. This is not a view shared by the rest of the region, but it has been very vocally expressed by some individuals.
Dev Teelucksingh: Okay. (Inaudible) who those persons are. Okay, thanks, Evan. But I disagree with it.
Interpreter: So, then, we definitely have to issue our position on – we are to that point, then, says Andres. Yes, and we definitely agree with that as well.
So, now, number three, the election period. And the methodology of the election period, and there is a very wide recommendation in regards to the election of the candidates. Does somebody want to read this? Does somebody want to summarize this for the rest? It's point No. 3. I can read it. And we'll listen to your melodious voice.
What the recommendation is, basically, for a selection committee by ALAC, let's say, to – and then this to be formed by two representatives by ICANN and a president, and then the president selected by ALAC and has the right to vote, and then each member on this board will have the capacity in order to continue with the process. That's basically the summary.
And I do have a question. Yes, go ahead, Sergio. When we talk about the fact that none of these people that are going to be part of this committee are not allowed to be candidates; is that what we're saying? Is that written somewhere? Is that on the discussion? Yes, I think that's very clear on the discussion. Well, I mean, that is something we have to keep in mind.
Right, but that would be, you know, the logical thing to do. So, Wendy and Hong and a lot of them had this discussion as well, and this in regards to the restriction of the process. Because, you know, there has been a criticism the way this process occurs. I mean, I defend the process the way it is. I mean, I know Wendy had other proposals and I know that Alan had other opinions as well in regards to this process. I don't know what you guys think.
I do have a question, because maybe I'm not understanding. When you're talking about a term on the election, what exactly are you talking about? How many members are you talking about? Three members, because in the voting period there is a recommendation about a third around, as though there were more than three candidates. So, then, three candidates, that's what they're saying? I mean, when I read this, why three and not one per region? I mean, that's what I thought, or five? I mean, I don't know the reasons why they decided it should be three. I mean, NomCom sometimes – I'm not even going to question that.
And then the other case, to say five is not the same as to say one per region, because then that would limit certain regions. For example – right, but we should have at least a minimum requirement data, at least one representative per region. So, either five or more, then.
So, let's say seven with a limitation one per region, let's say. At least for each region to have the possibility of participating. I mean, we have to keep in mind that this is – the process has several steps and the fact that there is only three people allowed doesn't mean that it's only three people are the limit. I mean, we're not even sure at this point.
Well, I mean, Andres, I agree with what Sergio says. I mean, I definitely believe that.
I'm sorry, guys, give me one second, because whoever is speaking, it sounds quite robotic. I can't understand.
So, we need clarification, then, on that point, what is the idea, to have three? If it is three, how is that decided? I mean, what Evan Leibovitch says in Adobe is, I think, a very good point. Do you guys have something to say about this in English? You know, because there – seven or more candidates could be allowed. Yes.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay, may I?
Interpreter: Yes, Evan.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. I was involved with the team that wrote this, so I understand fully what the intent was. So, the recommendation says that the first step is that this selection committee will come up with a list of candidates, probably no more than three or four. After that, then the regions, if they believe that the committee left somebody out or made an error, or did not pick the right people, have the ability to add people to the list of candidates. So, as a result, you could have the selection committee coming up with three or four or five candidates, and then the regions adding to that. And, in fact, there is no limit in these recommendations to how many may be added. So, you could have conceivably seven, eight or more people for the first round of voting.
The intention is to have a mechanized voting process that will turn this from seven, eight, nine, whatever, to either two or three. The reason why we did this is that in the very final round, that the person who gets the selection from At-Large should have at least 51% of the vote. And so no matter how many candidates start in the election, the intention is that the final person who is selected by At-Large to go to the board will have the absolute majority of the votes from the regions.
That is the intention. Whether it was three or two was simply a matter of whether or not there was an intention of having choice enough to have more rounds. The problem with having too many rounds is because obviously it is difficult when the people who are representing the regions have to go back to consult each time for a vote. So, this could be a very time-consuming process.
And so the authors of the original recommendation were to say that when the election starts, it starts with as many candidates as we have possible, as many candidates who are qualified. At that point, then, after the election, then you pick – you make sure that after that, then we have candidates who are capable of getting 51% of the final vote. So, we narrow it down to either the top two or the top three. That was the intention.
Interpreter: And thank you, Evan. Is it clear now for everybody? I mean, is that what we agree with? I mean, Antonio had raised his hand and then we'll go with Sergio. But, okay, after Antonio, then we go with Sergio. Antonio, did you want to say something? Antonio, are you there? Okay, Sergio.
No, what I'm saying is I understand the situation. I mean, it's also a matter of, also, to have a guarantee within the candidates to at least have one representative minimum from each region. That's the issue. I mean, and there should be a representative from each region as well.
Even if the final choice is three people, but at least in the first round to have representatives from each region, to have that as a guarantee that each region has had the possibility of able to be part of that first round. And I do like that, actually. And what is the opinion of everybody?
This is Fatima, can I say something about that? I think that is a good point. But we don't have a candidates that fulfills the requirements for the region at that moment, then what do we do? I mean, then, that would be an issue for the region to deal with and for the region to prepare the right candidate. I think that now we do have several of our colleagues that have the right qualifications. I mean, it's been as a suggestion, but for this not to be an obligation, either. I definitely think that there is a lot of possibilities involved.
As the region, we have to assume the responsibility that if we have a colleague, that they have the right qualifications. And that is our job as a RALO, then. But, once again, this is a process that is long term.
Yes, but we can at least set a precedent. I mean, what Antonio is saying, there is an important factor here. That at least in the first round, if a RALO wants to present one of the candidates from their region, it's important, but most importantly, yes, it is important that each region has the possibility to do this.
So, I really like what Sergio says. I think that it would be important to really issue this as an important statement. Because as a RALO we do think each region should have the possibility to nominate candidates. But once again, as RALOs, you know, the way the dynamic or the way the methodology is proposed, I think that that does leave room for that possibility. So, that, I think, is a good thing.
Is Antonio still on the line? Okay. Antonio just gave me a number so he gets called. So the question that I was asking in regards to this methodology is – so, Carlos is still here, Jose Luis is here, Dev, you're still here.
Dev Teelucksingh: Yes.
Interpreter: Anyway, so, the point – it's interesting to have several people from all the regions to be part of the first round. What do you think?
Yeah, I do agree. I think that we should have people from each of the regions, because each region does have people that have the right qualifications to have that position. And whatever person that represents our region should have the support so they can actually go to the second round. So, yes, we definitely need to have people from each region, at least in the first round. And that was Carlos Aquirre.
So, we should definitely release the same in regards to this issue, then, as a RALO, in that case.
So, I think that what the minutes should say on this point is that we all agree with the process and we definitely think that there should be one candidate per region at least for the first round.
Oh, and Ailan is on the line now with us and it's a pleasure to hear from you. I agree with what Carlos is saying. I think it is the beginning of something.
Okay, and give me one second, Dev. Ailan is speaking, but his connection is not very good and I can't seem to get it. Give me one second.
Okay, and so Ailan agrees with Carlos and he added, also, the fact that that should be a reality, that should set a precedence for things to come at some point.
In summary, unless somebody else has something else, I think that our statement should say that we agree with that recommendation and that on the first round, at least, there should be at least one candidate from each region. Does anybody have anything to say in English about that?
Dev Teelucksingh: No, no.
Interpreter: Okay. Now we go to .4. So, final recommendation, there are many options. And, finally, we agreed with the final recommendation, meaning one vote per ALAC and one vote for each RALO president, and that's what we agreed with. And who actually unties it? The ALAC president. No, excuse me, I was reading wrong. I'm sorry, a bit confusing here.
Okay. So, then, for .4, the recommendation of the board is to the actual – the recommendation of the board, then, to the seat on the board that they need to be elected by ALAC and the president of the RALOs, and then the ALAC members are nominated by the RALOs, and then the president of the RALOs can be instructed by the ALSs. So, there are 15, and then who actually has the possibility of untying the vote, unless there's an abstention in the vote. Any opinions on that? And we're talking about 5.4, for the electorate.
Right. In the electorate the ALSs also have a vote. But the final vote – I mean, the ALSs have a double control because they are the ones that can not only advise the ALAC members, but they can also advise the president of the RALO as well.
So, it is not a directed vote, but it is an advisory one. So, then it's a double power, because they can basically – so, you have the five RALOs and then you have the ALSs. But, really, what we're talking about here, in conclusion, is not that.
I think what we're trying to say is, who actually unties the vote if there is a tie in the votes? And that is really what we want to know. Who breaks the tie? So, who breaks the tie? Is it the ALAC president or a president is elected and the president breaks the tie?
Evan, do you have any idea on the electorate, if there is 20 votes, let's say, and there's a tie, who breaks the tie? Do you know this?
Evan Leibovitch: If it's – you mean if it's 10 vote for one, 10 votes for the other? We did not discuss this in detail, to be honest. I also want to add one more thing. In the recommendation, the ALSs, depending on the desire of the region, and each region may do this differently. You may choose that the ALSs may direct the president. It may be simply recommendations, but depending on the desire of each individual region, there might be a decision so that the president may be explicitly directed to vote as the ALSs have requested. That is up to each region.
But as far as breaking the tie, it could be the president of ALAC. That would be logical, but that was never explicitly discussed within the group that was drafting the recommendations. If that is to be brought forward by LACRALO, that would be very welcome.
Interpreter: That would be good. We would like to present this, then, as a question. I mean, you want a suggestion or a solution? I mean, what I would like to say is for the ALAC chair not to be – maybe for the chair of that committee. When the committee is formed, there is a secretary and president, and so the president of that committee, the one that abstains or the one that votes double. Carlos?
I think that without prejudice to what Sergio said, I think that if there is a tie, then for a new election to be done. And so somebody has the majority of votes. That's what I think, because it's a very difficult position to choose who is going to decide how to break a tie and then – and, you know, there are going to be wounds that are going to be left over. You know, depending on who is elected.
Right. You know, if we have 20 votes and one of those votes is the elect president, whether they abstain or not. So, either there is a person that – you know, his vote is one of the 20 votes. So, that's where. I'm sorry, I was confused. Please go on.
No, that was the only thing. I mean, for me, that should be the issue to deal with this, to have a new election. I mean – did you want to say something, Evan?
Evan Leibovitch: Yes.
Interpreter: Give me one second, because they are still speaking.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay.
Interpreter: If you start speaking, I am going to miss it.
Evan Leibovitch: No problem.
Interpreter: Go ahead, Evan.
Evan Leibovitch: Staging another election is probably not a useful option merely because we are working within the timetable for ICANN seating the directors. So, we probably will not have time to totally do a new election.
I would very strongly suggest some kind of alternative method for tie breaking. If it is desired not to have the ALAC president to the tie break, then you could essentially then go back to the five regional presidents, of which there are five, an odd number, and between them break the tie in case there is a problem with this.
It really is hoped that we don't get into this situation very often, but there are a number of ways that we can do this without having to discard what will be a very lengthy election process. The ICANN timetable itself, of its own board, will simply not give us the luxury of fully redoing an election.
Interpreter: And thank you, Evan. So, then, recap here. It's important in that case, first of all, that we agree with this process, because this issue about the 20 votes is something that has been questioned. We approved with the 20 votes, 5 plus 15, for these to be secret now. It's a good thing that we were able to bring forth this other proposal because there isn't a break to tie methodology.
So, there is definitely an idea to then release a statement about this. I mean, it's kind of premature and it's an encumbrance here to come about with a solution, but it's good to bring these things to the table to be able to come up with a solution.
Some people say that it should be the ALAC chair, other people say that a new reelection. But from what we have heard, a new election would have basically consequences on the time table issues and then the final proposal is to have the five chairs to decide, or for the president of that committee were the ones to break the tie and not the ALAC chair.
So, these are the four possibilities that we have heard so far. So, it's a matter of discussing these four. I mean, it's not a matter of limiting ourselves within this hour period. What do you think? I mean, these are all suggestions, so –
Because we continue this as a discussion. One person can come up with other proposals. So, then, is anybody taking notes to the conclusions that we are reaching on each of these points? Either Dev or Fatima? Anybody taking notes on all this?
Dev Teelucksingh: Matthias, I think, is taking notes. But we will also be listening very carefully, actually, to the transcripts again. It's a lot of information.
Interpreter: And I basically did a small summary at the end of each point of what we have discussed and what our contribution is. Okay, point No. 5. And then we have the two proposals here for the alternative proposal. Let's say on the one hand the first round is a vote, let's say if there isn't a candidate that wins the 50%, then the two best candidates are identified. And then there is a majority vote to see who is going to be the winner.
Or the second option, if more than 50% of the votes go to the one candidate, then that ends the round. But if there is no winner, then to ID the three top candidates, and then those two to cancel out the one. Is that what the proposal is?
But there is no third round as recommendation. I mean, I (inaudible) for the first one, personally, because, you know, it's less time consuming.
Yeah, and, you know, the second option is just a waste of too many resources, I think, and that's Fatima speaking.
But at the same time, though, with the second or third round, don't you think that maybe that would be a good way to solve the – to break the tie issue?
Evan Leibovitch: In either of these choices, it is possible to get to a resolution where the last round results in 10 to 10.
Interpreter: Okay. So, hold on, Evan. Let me go ahead and tell them.
Evan Leibovitch: Sorry.
Interpreter: They are speaking. And just so you know, if they are speaking and you're speaking, I need to pause to one of the channels; otherwise, I miss.
Evan Leibovitch: Oh, sorry.
Interpreter: No, no, don't apologize.
Evan Leibovitch: I'm not used to this.
Interpreter: I know. It's okay. One second, Evan. The second recommendation is, so basically, the first round, if the person gets the majority of the votes, meaning more than 50%, they win. Then otherwise they go into the second round, and that is how you come up with a cleanup, if you (inaudible) the candidates.
Evan Leibovitch: Yes. Correct.
Impairment And then if there is a third round, you know, that will cancel out whichever of the two, and that is really where the final election happens.
You know, we didn't get Evan's clarification because we kept on reading this. But if Evan can actually clarify this point, that would be quicker. Go ahead, Evan, please, by all means.
Evan Leibovitch: Okay. Under either of the two recommendations, no matter how many people are on the first round, if one person receives 50% plus one, they immediately win under either system. If that is not the case, then under the first choice, then the top two people would be brought to a second round until one of them received 50% plus one.
The issue that was raised here about the tie breaker is very valid. That was not mentioned in this recommendation and does need to be addressed.
The second recommendation addressed the needs of some people that believed that having three people come out of the first round might be useful. That gives a greater range of choice so that after the first round, if nobody receives 50% plus one, we have a second round with three candidates.
After that round, if somebody receives 50% plus one, they are the winner, we do not go to a third round. If we do not have a person with 50% plus one, then the person with the fewest votes gets dropped and the last round is two candidates. The person who receives the most votes from that election becomes the winner.
In both these systems we have a potential of a 10-10 tie, and you've been very diligent in noticing that there is no mechanism for the tie break. But other than that, I believe I have explained these accurately.
Interpreter: And I like that. I like the second one, actually. The one where three people are (inaudible) and if nobody reaches 50%, there is not two, then three, and then from those three, if nobody gets the 50%, then two are left, and then the final person elected after that. I like that possibility, actually. So, that's a good one.
So, Antonio now agrees with the second option. Now it's extremely clear what the methodology is. I think that now, when we release our statement, I think it will be clear. I think that the rest of the members on the list didn't understand this second possibility. I have no problem in redrafting to clarify this, but I don't even know if it's necessary, because so far, with this explanation, I was definitely convinced with the second option. I think we are understanding.
Right, Andres. At first I only agreed with the first one, but now that the second one has been explained, I definitely agree. I mean, should we prepare a document clarifying this a bit better for the region?
Okay. So, our position is, then, to vote for the second recommendation, right? What do you guys think? Is Matthias here? I don't know if he is here or not, but are we almost out of time? We already went over half an hour, yeah. So, we let's do a quick recap, then.
So, Andres, I would just like to ask the staff what they know about the Nairobi meeting, what – do we have any news?
Right, it's true, because the latest news was from last night. So, if anybody else has any news on Nairobi.
For the moment, we are not too sure what's going to happen. It's something that is going to be handled by the board, and it will be the ICANN board who is going to decide what's going to happen with the Nairobi meetings. For the moment, we do not know and we cannot really say with certainty if the rumors are true. But either tomorrow – I think that the board meets tomorrow, and then by Saturday or Monday there will be a statement by ICANN with all that information. So, (inaudible) logical.
Matthias, so, then, what's going to happen with the travel plans and all that, it is going to put a stop to that, then?
Right. We don't know what's going to happen with the hotels and with the plane tickets. I mean, it's not sure. We don't know what's going to happen. Because at this point, since we don't know if it's going to be in Nairobi or not, then.
So, we have a few minutes to talk about one of the action items, one of the very important action items.
I have to go, both Sergio, it's been a pleasure, and it's a shame what's happened (inaudible), and thank you. Thank you so much. And a hug for everyone.
In regards to the action items, we spoke with Dev that from December to now we haven't really given that much priority. But I definitely think that we have done a good job giving an opinion on each of these points. So, we can leave it for the list for next month. What do you guys think?
Andres, once again, I do want to say that, you know, we really need to continue working on participation and just invite everybody to participate. The other day we sent a letter to the general list, to the At-Large community, and we have actually just gotten one response from a person from (inaudible), an ALAC member, Mohamed El Bashir. He is the only person that responded to our proposal.
And so it would be good to work a bit harder, because many times we are told that there isn't enough participation. So, we need to then participate in order to bring about more participation. So, that should be maybe the (inaudible) of our work especially in our case.
So, it would be good to try to find a way to motivate a bit more, to have more contribution. In any language, by any means, by Internet, by e-mail, however, participation is welcomed.
And, Carlos, it's a good thing that you reminded me, because that's one of the main issues, really. And I think now that the possibility with having a meeting with Nick Ashton in Nairobi – well, let's hope it's still in Nairobi – is also going to give us more inside look on the coordination than in regards to the social networks as well. Either Facebook or twitter or whatever, if there is a special subject or one of you guys want to follow me, I encourage you to become part of this crusade. Because it will really – gives us that link with the outside with more people to be able to see what we are doing.
I don't know if there is anybody else that has something to say about that? Otherwise, we are going to close. Unless – Dev, did you want to say something, Dev?
Dev Teelucksingh: Yes, I do want to say something.
Interpreter: Go ahead.
Dev Teelucksingh: Regarding the strategic plan, there were comments that were drafted by LACRALO. Right now currently before ALAC is the combined statement that was put together by ALAC, combining all of the regional inputs. So, the question is, of course, do we just – do we go with the combined RALO comments that is now currently underway as a vote by ALAC, or do we submit our comments separately? That is the question. I think all of our comments were included in the ALAC statement. But, I mean, I'm just asking if there are any other comments needed on the strategic plan, which really has to be like now, and whether we should submit it separately? That's the question.
Interpreter: I don't think there is anything we should do about that, but if anybody wants to, I think no. I think that we agree with what's been done. I mean, there is nothing else to add so far.
Dev Teelucksingh: Okay, fair enough.
Interpreter: But if somebody wants to add something on the list as well, I mean, please, by all means.
Okay. So, there is nothing else. We close, then, now.
Very well. Then in that case, good afternoon to everybody. It has been a pleasure. And everybody take care, have a great afternoon, and that's it.
