About the former, we are pretty much depending on whether we have only one class of RALO Individual Members - and therefore everybody has a vote - or whether we believe that some RALO Individual Members should not be allowed to have a vote for whatever reason. In the latter case we must introduce a second class of members, that we may call “Observers” - although they are not just observing, but still participate to policy development and other ICANN-related issues.
About the latter, given the polls (see https://doodle.com/poll/5u3bvvn7f4fzp5ef) there is a significant majority for one single vote for the aggregate set of RALO Individual Members, but a non-irrelevant minority for a different voting weight for the aggregated individuals. However, we have unanimity about giving the RALO Individual Members a vote (in aggregate).
The problem here is that every RALO has its voting procedures - some RALOs give a vote unit to each ALS, some other have different rules. I note that the ALS-Mob WP has not questioned the different voting schemes for ALSes, and wonder therefore whether it would make sense at all to seek a common procedure for RALO Individual Members when this is not the case for ALSes. I would therefore propose that we leave the matter for RALOs to decide their own policy.
Also on this topic, I would not have a long discussion at the next teleconference, but I welcome thoughts - still thinking that this is for the time being more a topic to debate via email or wiki (where this email is going to be pasted anyway).
Let's keep it simple. If a RALO wants to have "observers" or "participants" who are not ALS or individual members, let them do it. We can be silent about it.
On the second issue, I would suggest that we say that to the extent that a RALO has voting for ALSes, there SHOULD/MUST [we need to pick one] be comparable voting for individual members.
I am following up the discussion in the latest call with this email, also posted on the wiki under UIM-WP Voting Issues.
I have to say that, while I was worried that we would have difficulties in finding a solution meeting general approval, I believe that the situation seems to be quite clear.
We had two questions, that I had summarised as:
who has the right to vote
how is the voting handled (weighted)
I have sensed no objections to the principle that every RALO Individual Member has the right to vote whenever a vote is called. The problem might be, however, on how the vote is handled in comparison with the vote of the ALSes.
One comment was whether we say that a RALO “should” or “must” guarantee a voting weight to the individuals. During the discussion whoever has spoken has indicated “MUST”. In particular, in the chat I see the following: "I would use MUST as well, but it may receive some pushback from RALOs”.
However, we had a poll on voting - see https://doodle.com/poll/5u3bvvn7f4fzp5ef - and none of the 18 participants has questioned the fact that the vote of the individuals will carry a weight, the difference was to the weight itself.
So I take “MUST” as a consensus.
About the voting weight, it seems to me that one good “default” option is that the aggregated vote of the Individual Members of a RALO carry the same weight as one ALS of the same RALO. In short, all individuals vote, and the vote of the majority will count as one ALS vote.
However, we must leave room for different approaches. For instance, in LACRALO not all ALSes carry the same voting weight - that means that LACRALO will adjust this general formula to their practice. Other RALOs may choose to give to the individuals a higher weight than just one ALS vote - maybe because of a large number of individuals, or whatever other reason. This should be allowed, provided that the total weight is non zero and is also not so high to outnumber the voting weight of the ALSes, who remain in any case the foundation of At-Large.
3 Comments
Roberto Gaetano
Dear all,
I know that we are stuck on voting.
I recognise two issues here:
About the former, we are pretty much depending on whether we have only one class of RALO Individual Members - and therefore everybody has a vote - or whether we believe that some RALO Individual Members should not be allowed to have a vote for whatever reason. In the latter case we must introduce a second class of members, that we may call “Observers” - although they are not just observing, but still participate to policy development and other ICANN-related issues.
About the latter, given the polls (see https://doodle.com/poll/5u3bvvn7f4fzp5ef) there is a significant majority for one single vote for the aggregate set of RALO Individual Members, but a non-irrelevant minority for a different voting weight for the aggregated individuals. However, we have unanimity about giving the RALO Individual Members a vote (in aggregate).
The problem here is that every RALO has its voting procedures - some RALOs give a vote unit to each ALS, some other have different rules. I note that the ALS-Mob WP has not questioned the different voting schemes for ALSes, and wonder therefore whether it would make sense at all to seek a common procedure for RALO Individual Members when this is not the case for ALSes. I would therefore propose that we leave the matter for RALOs to decide their own policy.
Also on this topic, I would not have a long discussion at the next teleconference, but I welcome thoughts - still thinking that this is for the time being more a topic to debate via email or wiki (where this email is going to be pasted anyway).
Cheers,
Roberto
Alan Greenberg
Let's keep it simple. If a RALO wants to have "observers" or "participants" who are not ALS or individual members, let them do it. We can be silent about it.
On the second issue, I would suggest that we say that to the extent that a RALO has voting for ALSes, there SHOULD/MUST [we need to pick one] be comparable voting for individual members.
Roberto Gaetano
Dear all,
I am following up the discussion in the latest call with this email, also posted on the wiki under UIM-WP Voting Issues.
I have to say that, while I was worried that we would have difficulties in finding a solution meeting general approval, I believe that the situation seems to be quite clear.
We had two questions, that I had summarised as:
I have sensed no objections to the principle that every RALO Individual Member has the right to vote whenever a vote is called. The problem might be, however, on how the vote is handled in comparison with the vote of the ALSes.
One comment was whether we say that a RALO “should” or “must” guarantee a voting weight to the individuals. During the discussion whoever has spoken has indicated “MUST”. In particular, in the chat I see the following: "I would use MUST as well, but it may receive some pushback from RALOs”.
However, we had a poll on voting - see https://doodle.com/poll/5u3bvvn7f4fzp5ef - and none of the 18 participants has questioned the fact that the vote of the individuals will carry a weight, the difference was to the weight itself.
So I take “MUST” as a consensus.
About the voting weight, it seems to me that one good “default” option is that the aggregated vote of the Individual Members of a RALO carry the same weight as one ALS of the same RALO. In short, all individuals vote, and the vote of the majority will count as one ALS vote.
However, we must leave room for different approaches. For instance, in LACRALO not all ALSes carry the same voting weight - that means that LACRALO will adjust this general formula to their practice. Other RALOs may choose to give to the individuals a higher weight than just one ALS vote - maybe because of a large number of individuals, or whatever other reason. This should be allowed, provided that the total weight is non zero and is also not so high to outnumber the voting weight of the ALSes, who remain in any case the foundation of At-Large.
Comments? Objections?
Cheers,
Roberto