RE: [council] Names Council Elections of ICANN Board Members -Processwith Expert Advice

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

Theresa,

Thanks - I assumed that it would be obvious that this proposal was 
only ONE of the proposals in fornt of the Names Council.  
Apologies indeed in any other impression was given.  Since Ben 
was on the teleconference, I assumed that there was no possibility 
of confusion.

Thanks for pointing this out.
Dennis

Date sent:      	Thu, 16 Sep 1999 18:51:05 -0400
From:           	Theresa Swinehart <Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com>
Subject:        	RE: [council] Names Council Elections of ICANN Board Members -
	Processwith Expert Advice
To:             	Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie, "'Names Council (E-mail)'" <council@dnso.org>
Copies to:      	"'Ben Edelman (E-mail)'" <edelman@law.harvard.edu>,
	"'Fay Howard (E-mail)'" <Fay@ripe.net>
Send reply to:  	Theresa.Swinehart@wcom.com

> 
> 
> I don't quite understand why this version, and not the other two versions,
> were sent to Berkman (with clarification of the context). As you know, there
> were several who expressed concern about this version and that expert advice
> had been solicited -- which of course is great -- except that the NC wasn't
> aware that this was being done nor had any input into which expert advice to
> use. We should make this point clear so there is no confusion or
> misperception that the NC may have signed off on this version as 'the expert
> recommended process' for them to Okay.
> 
>  I for one don't understand it - I guess perhaps I should get expert advice
> on what it means...:)? Unless something occurred after I got off, I suggest
> we stick with what had been agreed to on yesterday's NC call and move as
> quickly as possible.
> 
> 
> Theresa
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org] On Behalf Of
> Dennis Jennings
> Sent:	Wednesday, September 15, 1999 7:43 PM
> To:	Names Council (E-mail)
> Cc:	Ben Edelman (E-mail); Fay Howard (E-mail); Dennis Jennings (E-mail)
> Subject:	[council] Names Council Elections of ICANN Board Members -
> Processwith Expert Advice
> 
> 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
> 


-------------------------------------------------------
Dennis M. Jennings
Director, Computing Services, University College Dublin.
Address:  Daedalus Building, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
E-mail:  Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie
Telephone:  +353-(1) 706 7817
Fax:        +353-(1) 706 2362