At-Large Advisory Committee Rules of Procedure
Revision 11 was adopted in August 2010.
ALAC ROP's ADOPTED October 2007.pdf
Members
Ad-hoc working group created to draft election rules for the election of the board liaison
- Chair, Cheryl Langdon-Orr (Asia Pacific)
- Member, Robert Guerra (North America)
- Member, Veronica Cretu (Europe)
Timeline
see also Way Forward
- Created at ICANN San Juan meeting (June 25-29, 07)
- First draft document issued July 5, 07
- Report of Activities - July 10,07
- ALAC modified terms of reference - July 10, 07
- Priority given to rules related to election of board liaison
- Extended terms of reference until Aug 07 conference call
- Extended time for comments until end of july 07
- Adoption of ALAC internal rules of procedure moved to Aug 07 conference call
- Vote on voting method
- Adoption of IVR (instant runoff voting) for voting method
- Draft Election rules document issued (July 23, 07)
- Comment period (July 23 - Aug 6, 07)
- Summary of comments published (Aug 6, 07)
- Revised document issued - with proposed comments/revisions
- Second report issued (Aug 07)
Finalisation of ROP's inclusive of the aformentioned and agreed Voting Method section During September.
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/way+forward?moved=true
- Draft ROP's issued for final comments in September (See way forward page mentioned above)
- Final ROP's accepted on 29th September - becoming our operational documentation from the beginning of October 2007
- Final to be released after reference cross check and formate changes as required in early October
----Where there are more than two candidates, I recommend single transferrable vote / instant runoff, with the election decided by simple majority of the votes cast:
Each voter ranks the candidates 1-N
#1 votes are tabulated;
If one candidate has a majority, that candidate wins. If not,
The candidate with fewest #1 votes is dropped from the list and his/her next (#2) votes are allocated to the remaining candidates;
The process continues until one candidate has a simple majority of the votes.
That candidate is the winner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Transferable_Vote
contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2007-06-28 21:15:17 GMT
That last comment was from me, Wendy. Not sure why it didn't come through signed.
contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2007-06-28 21:15:50 GMT
Just to avoid creating one more procedural document, I suggest you to start from the rules that are already in our Rules of Procedure,
and to change them if necessary. Currently, the rules are simple majority (first past the post) provided that the winner has at least five votes,
and that at least ten votes are cast (including abstentions). There are also rules to cover ties and lacks of quorums. See ""[https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi/ALAC%202007%201%201.Rev3%20ALAC%20Internal%20Rules%20of%20Procedure%20-%20EN.pdf?action=attachments_download;page_name=rules_of_procedure;id=20070606071510-1-17622^http://tinyurl.com/ywxpxg
contributed by vb@bertola.eu on 2007-06-29 02:44:51 GMT
First of all, I think candidates should refrain from commenting on the voting procedure.
Secondly, I think the proposed rules are OK, but don't understand why you need a different procedure than the one in the ALAC Rules of Procedure Vittorio refers to.
contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2007-06-29 13:40:31 GMT
I have posted a notice on the creation on the working group on the public at-large list to solicit comments and/or suggestion.
contributed by rguerra@privaterra.ca on 2007-06-29 14:00:28 GMT
A suggestion related to having the position of chair alternate has been recieved. A EU troika (past, current & future) chair mechanism might be one way to do it. There could be others. awaiting specific language so that WG can try to suggest language for consideration by the ALAC
contributed by rguerra@privaterra.ca on 2007-07-06 13:33:10 GMT
WG has completed its task of creating a - DRAFT - for consideration by the ALAC. However, comments are still being received . As time permits, and in the order comments are received - the WG will try to draft suggested alternatives to include.
contributed by rguerra@privaterra.ca on 2007-07-06 13:37:51 GMT
I am not yet clear about the real merit of Instant Run-off Voting vs. the traditional simple majority vote in case of no one got majority to go secound round for simple majority. Could someone explain it?that will be very much appreciated.
izumi
contributed by iza@anr.org on 2007-07-10 15:01:49 GMT
