RE: [council] Some Thoughts on the Elections Process

[Dennis Jennings <Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie>]

Joe,

We are all working hard to get a Sound Process as well as doing it in time 
for LA.  We can trade speed in favour of having a Sound Process, but we 
cannot trade having a Sound Process in favour of speed.

The current proposals for the actual election are ad hoc and unsound IMO. 
 We need expert advice on this.  Fortunately there is time to get such 
advice.

Dennis

On Monday, September 13, 1999 3:03 AM, Joe Sims 
[SMTP:Joe_Sims@jonesday.com] wrote:
>
>
>
> 
___________________________________________________________________________
> ____
>
>  This message is intended for the individual or entity named above.  If 
you
> are not the intended
>  recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication 
to
> others; also please
>  notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
> your system.  Thank you.
> 
___________________________________________________________________________
> ____
>
> If I may throw in two cents worth of opinion, by far  the most important
> thing the NC can do at the moment is to make sure that the DNSO, which 
was
> the first SO recognized, is not the only SO not to elect its Directors in
> time for them to be seated in LA..  There are important decisions to be
> made in Los Angeles; it would be a shame if the PSO and ASO Directors 
take
> their seats and have their say, but DNSO members were incapable of 
getting
> their Directors elected in time to participate in those decisions.  IMHO,
> the NC should be spending 100% of its time on this subject; everything 
else
> can wait until after Los Angeles.  There is enough time to do this if the
> NC puts its collective focus on this; if it does not, it will certainly
> appear to be because of a lack of will, not time.
>
>
>
>  (Embedded
>  image moved   Dennis Jennings <Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie>
>  to file:      09/12/99 07:44 PM
>  pic23825.pcx)
>
>
>
> Extension:
>
> To:   "'Javier'" <javier@aui.es>
> cc:   "'council@dnso.org'"<council@dnso.org> (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
> Subject:  RE: [council] Some Thoughts on the Elections Process
>
>
>
>
> Javier,
>
> Unless we have an agreed process that is and will be seen to be fair and
> workable, we should not be driven by the deadline requested by the ICANN
> Board.  It is much more important to get this right and agreed than that
> the DNSO has three Board members in a hurry.
>
> The reputation of the Names Council is not very high (to say the least) -
> and much of this arises because of the continuing demand that we rush to
> get things done before we know what to do or how to do it.
>
> Let's have a calm discussion on the voting process - and hopefully we can
> agree on a sensible workable process (with expert advice on the voting
> issues), and proceed rapidly to implement it - hopefully in time for the
> October 15th Deadline.
>
> Dennis
>
> On Friday, September 10, 1999 8:16 PM, Javier [SMTP:javier@aui.es] wrote:
> > Dennis,
> >
> > The process that you propose sounds very good in general (see comments
> > below), but cannot be applied now, as our time constraints are clear. 
If
> > the nomination period is to be of four weeks, we would need to start it
> on
> > September 17 (a week from today).
> >
> > We need a mechanisms that will bring Directors into office by October
> 15th.
> >
> >
> > >Boundary Conditions:
> > >
> > >1  Nominations by the DNSO General Assembly.
> > >2  The electorate is the members of the Names Council.
> > >3  Three candidates to be elected.
> > >4  Each successful candidate to have "over 50% of the affirmative 
votes
> > >of the NC members".
> > >6  "...no more than one-half (1/2) of the total number of Directors, 
in
> the
> > >aggregate, serving at any given time pursuant to selection by the
> > >Supporting Organisations shall be citizens of countries located in any
> > >one Geographic Region."
> > >
> > >The electorate is the members of the Names Council
> > >
> > >This is clear.  However, it is also clearly the intent that the Names
> > >Council members consult the various Constituencies to get input on
> > >which candidates the Constituency favours.  This suggest that some
> > >formal mechanism of consultation of the Constituencies is required - 
and
> > >probably it will vary between Constituencies, given the disparate 
types
> > >of organisation of the Constituencies.  The most likely mechanism that
> > >will be and be seen to be transparent is a formal poll of the
> Constituency
> > >members.
> >
> > The Names Council should not be involved on how the constituencies 
reach
> > their agreements. It is up to each one of them to see if they want to
> > decide on candidates or leave the choice to the Names Council.
> >
> >
> > >4  Each successful candidate to have "over 50% of the affirmative 
votes
> > >of the NC members".
> > >
> > >This Boundary Conditions is imprecise, since the meaning of 
"affirmative
> > >votes" is not specified.  I presume that it means that to be elected a
> > >candidate must reach a quota of 50% of the votes cast.  This of course
> > >means that the voting must cope with the situation where no candidate
> > >achieves this result on the first ballot, and successive rounds of
> > >balloting are possible (with or without eliminations/standing down), 
or,
> > >alternatively, that the voting mechanism allow for elimination and re-
> > >distribution of votes.
> >
> > Having several votes per member (I have proposed three) will probably
> solve
> > this issue. I case one of the top three candidates does not reach the 
50%
> > line. A single vote of the Names Council deciding if it sends the name 
to
> > the Board can be used (if it receives the support of 50% of the NC).
> >
> > We shoult try to avoid having to repeat elections because of this 
clause.
> >
> >
> > >I do not know enough about any other mechanism to make any
> > >judgement on its suitability to meet the necessary criteria.  I'm sure
> that
> > >the Electoral Reform Society of the UK, who the ccTLD Constituency as
> > >advisers, will have detailed information about all sort of elections
> > >mechanisms.
> > >
> > >I presume that the vote will be by secret ballot.
> > >
> > >4  Geographical Diversity:  "...no more than one-half (1/2) of the 
total
> > >number of Directors, in the aggregate, serving at any given time
> > >pursuant to selection by the Supporting Organisations shall be 
citizens
> > >of countries located in any one Geographic Region."
> > >
> > >The last of these Boundary Conditions is unfortunately imprecise and
> > >does not lead to a precise constraint on the Directors elected by the
> > >DNSO.  This means that whatever the results of the DNSO elections to
> > >the ICANN Board, there exists the possibility that the results of the
> (set
> > >of all) elections (by the SOs) will be rejected as not meeting this
> > >condition, and new elections required.  However, since there is no
> > >precise constraint on the elections, the process could continue
> > >indefinitely without resolution - except by some arrangement between
> > >the various sets of electors.
> >
> > Most constituencies have an election system that always yields three
> > candidates from different regions, such as the one that I have proposed
> for
> > this case. It does need a mechanism to support the 50% affirmative vote
> > rule, but it is only a couple more sentences.
> >
> > javier
> >
>
>  << File: pic23825.pcx >>