[council] Names Council Elections of ICANN Board Members - Process with Expert Advice

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

Names Council, Berkman Centre.

Here below is the expert recommended process for the election by the Names 
Council of the three ICANN Directors.  This process is simple (YES, it is), 
guarantees that voters preferences are followed, ensures that no votes are 
wasted, guarantees a geographically diverse outcome, ensures that a single 
vote gives a result (i.e. no rounds of voting with the risk of each 
subsequent round being influenced by the previous rounds), and is 
internationally recognised as "sound".  (The expert advice came from Mr. 
Simon Hearn of the Electoral Reform Society of the UK - )

The process uses a Single Transferable Vote.

The Electors (19 Names Council voters) list their candidates in order of 
preference - 1, 2, 3 etc.

The person with the highest number of first preferences (No. 1s) gets seat 
A, provided they get the required quota of votes (19 seats divided by (3 + 
1) - i.e. 5 votes).  Other candidates from the winner's geographic region 
are then eliminated and their votes redistributed for the next stage, in 
the usual way and so on.

If nobody reaches the quota on the first count, which is more than likely 
if there are many candidates, the candidate with the least votes is 
eliminated and his/her votes are redistributed, and this proceeds 
repeatedly until someone passes the quota mark.

Once a person is elected to Seat A, their surplus of votes is redistributed 
according to the next preferences indicated on the votes cast for them. 
 The next person past the quota get seat B - after which candidates from 
seat B winner's region are also eliminated for the next round and their 
votes redistributed (always providing there are candidates from other 
regions).  Etc.

It may sound complicated, but a simple calculation gives the results 
immediately.

This method is fair, guarantees that the preferences of all the voters are 
taken into account, and definitely gives a geographically diverse outcome. 
 It is also a standard process, and can be objectively scrutinised by an 
independent expert.  It is also understood to be sound, PROVIDED that the 
geographically diverse elimination mechanism is well publicised in advance 
and is clear to all the voters (in this case the NA members - so this is 
not an issue)

To meet the 50% rule, the following is added.  On completion of the voting 
and elections as described above, a ratification vote is held - i.e. the 
result is voted on the by Names Council, each member having one vote.  To 
ratify the election, the result must receive approval by 50% of the votes 
cast.  If the result fails this test, a new election is held.  (This 
provides a useful final confirmation (or rejection) process).

Thanks
Dennis