[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [council] Convention-Style Voting adapted to the DNSO conditions
Ken Stubbs wrote:
>
> whose working hours nigel.... yours , mine, YJ's
>
Ken:
It is against Natural Justice to:
(a) not send out details of proposals before the Council to all
members in writing.
(b) send out revised proposals with only Saturday and Sunday to
read, understand, and indeed consult before it is 'deemed adopted'.
And for your information I was not 'taking it easy' over the weekend.
I was travelling on business and away from email between Fri 1830
and Mon 0830 UTC.
Most or all of us have real jobs and obligations as well as ICANN.
To imply that membership of the ICANN Names Council means that you
should be available 24 hours, 7 days a week, is frankly absurd and
exclusionary.
After all, if that is true, when can you sleep? A revised version of a
proposal may be posted in the middle of the night after all!
Let us be sensible here, and listen to what Kathryn has been saying.
Or what YJ was saying in Santiago.
Any proposal for adoption must be formaulted in writing, in sufficient
detail for a decision to be properly made, and with sufficient notice
for
examination and consultation.
This is not an unreasonable expectation and all normal organisations
have rules which take account of this.
notification to a Council Member that there
is a deadline for comments
> for the majority of us there is no regular working hours when it comes to
> matters like this. i too enjoy my time and the opportunity to get out on the
> golf course or other diversions. i also realize that when i assumed this
> names council responsibility i accepted the addition time burdens it imposed
> on me.
>
> my feeling is that if your not comfortable with the additional time burdens
> placed on you then you might consider "passing the baton" over to someone
> in your constituancy who can find time commensurate with the position and
> related responsibility.
>
> ken stubbs
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Nigel Roberts <nigel@nic.gg>
> To: <Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie>
> Cc: 'Elisabeth Porteneuve' <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>;
> <council@dnso.org>; Andrew McLaughlin (E-mail) <mclaughlin@pobox.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 27, 1999 4:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [council] Convention-Style Voting adapted to the DNSO
> conditions
>
> > Also a strong objection.
> >
> > I only just saw this when I started at work at 0900 on Monday morning.
> >
> > /Please/ do not put any formal proposals up for consideration outside
> > working hours in future. And 'no objection' is not a mechanism which
> > should be used for such proposals either.
> >
> > We all need the opportunity to read, digest, and also perhaps
> > consult on the detail of such this, especially as I have not yet seen
> > the minutes of the telcon at which the principles behind this proposal
> > were agreed.
> >
> >
> > Nigel
> >
> > --
> >
> > Dennis Jennings wrote:
> > >
> > > Elisabeth, NC Colleagues,
> > >
> > > A strong objection, I'm afraid. Sorry.
> > >
> > > This variation of the convention style election process does not
> guarantee
> > > closure and is very confusing. Could we please make it simpler and much
> > > closer to the process recommended by Andrew. In addition, it must
> > > guarantee a GD outcome.
> > >
> > > I suggest the process (Andrew's) as follows:
> > >
> > > First Election to elect the Three Year ICANN Board member.
> > >
> > > First round: All NC's vote - 3 votes - three candidates must be voted
> for.
> > > If any candidate has 10 votes or more, that candidate is elected. If
> not,
> > > the candidates with zero votes are eliminated.
> > > ** Period of discussion within NC (I mean 30 - 60 minutes - not 30 - 60
> > > days)
> > > Second round: All NCs vote - 3 votes - three candidates voted for. If
> any
> > > candidate has more that 10 votes, that candidate elected. If not
> > > candidates with 1 vote are eliminated.
> > >
> > > Additional rounds - until a candidate get more that 10 votes.
> > >
> > > Result announced. All other candidates who are citizens of the region
> from
> > > which the fist elected board member comes are eliminated.
> > >
> > > *** Period of consultation with Constituencies - perhaps 24 hours.
> > >
> > > Second Election to elect the Two Year ICANN Board member.
> > >
> > > First round: All NCs vote - etc.
> > >
> > > Result announced. All other candidates from the region now represented
> are
> > > eliminated.
> > >
> > > Third Election to elect for the One Year ICANN Board member.
> > >
> > > First round: As above.- etc. etc.
> > >
> > > Result announced. End of election.
> > >
> > > Now, taking some of Amadeu's inputs on multiple votes, I think a
> variation
> > > on the above process that would speed up the election, and allow an
> element
> > > of preferential voting, would be desireable. It could be as follows (I
> > > just show the First Round process below - the rest follows the structure
> > > above).
> > >
> > > First Round: All NCs vote: 6 votes - must be used as follows - three
> > > votes for the first preference candidate, 2 votes for the second
> > > preference, 1 vote for the third preference. If any candidate has 30
> votes
> > > or more - elected. If not, those with less that three votes eliminated.
> > > ** period of consultation.... etc.
> > >
> > > This variation would be better in my view.
> > >
> > > The timescales proposed in the original message seem OK to me.
> > >
> > > Dennis
> > >
> > > On Friday, September 24, 1999 9:11 PM, Elisabeth Porteneuve
> > > [SMTP:Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr] wrote:
> > > > All,
> > > >
> > > > I tried to put together Andrew proposal with Amadeu input,
> > > > I am not sure I took into account Javier's very important
> > > > request for feasability, however it takes into account all
> > > > NC concerns.
> > > >
> > > > Without major objection from your side during the next 36 hours,
> > > > it will be considered adopted and published Sunday morning CET
> > > > on the dnso.org website.
> > > >
> > > > Elisabeth
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > Convention-Style Voting adapted to the DNSO conditions.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Use of basic rules. The secretariat will keep votes secret
> > > > untill the end of election period, and at the end make all
> > > > records public.
> > > > 2. According to the current nominations, it is assumed that
> > > > the initial list of nominees will have candidates from all
> > > > 5 regions.
> > > > 3. First round via email, to reduce the initial list of nominees
> > > > into N1. Each member of the NC cast 3 votes.
> > > > 4. Second round via email, to reduce the reduced list into the
> > > > no more than N2. Each member of the NC cast 2 votes.
> > > > 5. Third round via email, to reduce the reduced list into the
> > > > no more than N3. Each member of the NC cast 1 vote.
> > > > 6. Subsequent rounds via teleconference plus email, election of 3.
> > > > 7. In case of a tie the special vote will be held
> > > > during the final NC teleconference.
> > > >
> > > > In the worst scenario, step 3(c), the NC will never meet the
> > > > GD, and shall probably dissolve.
> > > >
> > > > In the bad scenario, votes equally distributed to different
> > > > candidates, N1=18, and then N2 may be set to 10,
> > > > and N3 set to 6.
> > > > In the expected scenario, N1=10, and then N2 may be set to 7/8,
> > > > and N3 to 5/6.
> > > >
> > > > The proposed system require each member of the NC to be available
> > > > for vote during all 7 days, Oct 9 to Oct 16.
> > > > The first three rounds are asynchronous (you vote when you like,
> > > > provided it is within the time window), the last one is synchronous
> > > > (during NC telecon on Saturday Oct 16).
> > > >
> > > > Elections will take place during 7 days, starting
> > > > Saturday October 9, 18:00 CET, ending Saturday October 16, 18:00 CET.
> > > > Unless the worst case happen, step 3(c), the elections will end
> > > > on time.
> > > >
> > > > First round via email.
> > > > Begins: Saturday October 9, 18:00 CET
> > > > Ends: Monday October 11, 18:00 CET
> > > > Votes will be sent to an address specially set up by the DNSO
> > > > secretariat. The results will be given within two hours after
> > > > the close of the first round.
> > > > First round, 19 voting NC members, 3 votes each, 57 total.
> > > > The initial number of nominees is unknown, but is assumed
> > > > to be as high as 20 or more.
> > > > Rules applied in the first round:
> > > > 1. Verification of valid votes.
> > > > Each member of the NC shall cast 3 votes, for 3 different
> > > > candidates.
> > > > 2. Verification if somebody get 10 affirmative votes.
> > > > If a nominee receives more than 10 affirmative votes from
> > > > the NC he is declared elected, and all orger candidates from
> > > > his geographic region are eliminated. The first candidate
> > > > elected with 10 affirmative votes get the mandate of 3 years,
> > > > the second of 2 years, and the third of 1 year.
> > > > 3. Dropped candidates and GD rule:
> > > > a. Candidates with zero, one or two votes are eliminated.
> > > > b. The check on the GD (geographic diversity) is done. If
> > > > after step (a) there is no GD, i.e. less than 3 regions
> > > > represented, all candidates from missing regions who received
> > > > 2 votes (or 1 vote if none with 2 votes) are added back
> > > > to the list of nominees.
> > > > c. (worst scenario) If the GD of nominees cannot be
> > > > achieved in step (b), the first round is repeted but
> > > > no more than 2 times. If no succes achieved, then
> > > > the NC shall dissolve.
> > > > If necessary, the first round repeted first time will be
> > > > Monday Oct 11, 21:00 CET to Wednesday Oct 13, 18:00 CET.
> > > > If necessary, the first round repeted second time will be
> > > > Wednesday Oct 13, 21:00 CET to Friday Oct 15, 18:00 CET.
> > > > In such a situation all subsequent rounds will be delayed.
> > > >
> > > > If the first round votes are equally distributed (each constituency
> > > > votes in block for 3 different candidates), we may end with
> > > > 18 nominees selected, which will be the worst possible. It is
> > > > expected we will have much less.
> > > >
> > > > Second round via email.
> > > > Begins: Monday October 11, 21:00 CET
> > > > Ends: Wednesday October 13, 18:00 CET
> > > > Votes will be sent to an address specially set up by the DNSO
> > > > secretariat. The results will be given within two hours after
> > > > the close of the second round.
> > > > Second round, 19 voting NC members, 2 votes each, 38 total.
> > > > In the worst scenario the number of nominees is expected to be 10 to
> 18.
> > > > Rules applied in the second round:
> > > > 1. Verification of valid votes.
> > > > Each member of the NC shall cast 2 votes, for 2 different
> > > > candidates.
> > > > 2. Verification if somebody get 10 affirmative votes.
> > > > If a nominee receives more than 10 affirmative votes from
> > > > the NC he is declared elected, and all orger candidates from
> > > > his geographic region are eliminated. The first candidate
> > > > elected with 10 affirmative votes get the mandate of 3 years,
> > > > the second of 2 years, and the third of 1 year.
> > > > 3. Dropped candidates and GD rule:
> > > > Loop A, repeted without vote until the number of remining
> > > > candidates is superior to N2:
> > > > a. Candidates with the lowest number of votes are eliminated.
> > > > b. The check on the GD (geographic diversity) is done. If
> > > > after step (a) there is no GD, i.e. less than 3 regions
> > > > represented, all candidates from missing regions who received
> > > > the lowest vote are added back to the list of nominees,
> > > > and their vote increased by one (this additional points will
> > > > not count for the affirmative votes, but only to keep GD).
> > > > End of Loop A.
> > > >
> > > > Third round via email.
> > > > Begins: Wednesday October 13, 21:00 CET
> > > > Ends: Friday, October 15, 18:00 CET
> > > > Votes will be sent to an address specially set up by the DNSO
> > > > secretariat. The results will be given within two hours after
> > > > the close of the second round.
> > > > Third round, 19 voting NC members, 1 votes each, 19 total.
> > > > In the worst scenario the number of nominees will be no greater than
> 10.
> > > > Rules applied in the third round:
> > > > 1. Verification of valid votes.
> > > > Each member of the NC shall cast 1 vote.
> > > > 2. Verification if somebody get 10 affirmative votes.
> > > > If a nominee receives more than 10 affirmative votes from
> > > > the NC he is declared elected, and all orger candidates from
> > > > his geographic region are eliminated. The first candidate
> > > > elected with 10 affirmative votes get the mandate of 3 years,
> > > > the second of 2 years, and the third of 1 year.
> > > > 3. Dropped candidates and GD rule:
> > > > Loop A, repeted without vote until the number of remining
> > > > candidates is superior to N3:
> > > > a. Candidates with the lowest number of votes are eliminated.
> > > > b. The check on the GD (geographic diversity) is done. If
> > > > after step (a) there is no GD, i.e. less than 3 regions
> > > > represented, all candidates from missing regions who received
> > > > the lowest vote are added back to the list of nominees,
> > > > and their vote increased by one (this additional points will
> > > > not count for the affirmative votes, but only to keep GD).
> > > > End of Loop A.
> > > >
> > > > Final rounds via telecon+email.
> > > > Begins: Saturday October 16, 15:00 CET
> > > > Ends: Saturday, October 16, 18:00 CET
> > > > Votes will be sent to an address specially set up by the DNSO
> > > > secretariat. The results will be given within minutes.
> > > > Final rounds, 19 voting NC members, 1 votes each, 19 total.
> > > > Dropped candidates and GD rule:
> > > > a. Candidates with the lowest number of votes are eliminated.
> > > > b. The check on the GD (geographic diversity) is done. If
> > > > after step (a) there is no GD, i.e. less than 3 regions
> > > > represented, the round is repeted.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > |From: "Andrew McLaughlin" <mclaughlin@pobox.com>
> > > > |To: <council@dnso.org>
> > > > |Cc: "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
> > > > |Subject: [council] Rules for Convention-Style Voting
> > > > |Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 12:16:28 -0400
> > > > |Message-ID: <006d01bf05de$fd69a120$74152581@omnibook>
> > > > |
> > > > |To the Names Council:
> > > > |
> > > > |As promised, here is a rough outline of the rules that would govern a
> > > > |convention-style voting procedure.
> > > > |
> > > > |
> > > > |I. BASIC RULES
> > > > |
> > > > | 1. The list of Director nominees is presented to the NC.
> > > > | 2. Each NC member votes for one nominee.
> > > > | 3. The nominees are ranked by the number of votes received, and
> > > the NC
> > > > |is informed of the result.
> > > > | 4. The lowest vote-getting nominee is eliminated from the list.
> > > [For
> > > > |the first round, all nominees receiving zero votes *and* the lowest
> > > > |vote-getting nominee are eliminated from the list.]
> > > > | 5. The procedure is repeated with the new (reduced) list.
> > > > | 6. A winner is declared when a nominee receives 10 or more of
> the
> > > NC's
> > > > |19 votes.
> > > > |
> > > > |The first seat to be filled will be the 3-year seat; then the 2-year
> > > seat;
> > > > |then the 1-year seat.
> > > > |
> > > > |In order to reduce the number of rounds of voting, the NC might
> > > eliminate
> > > > |the *two* lowest vote-getting nominees after each round (until such
> time
> > > as
> > > > |three nominees remain, at which point the *one* lowest vote-getting
> > > nominee
> > > > |is eliminated).
> > > > |
> > > > |
> > > > |II. VARIATIONS BY VOTING MEDIUM
> > > > |
> > > > |
> > > > |BY TELEPHONE
> > > > |
> > > > |To conduct a convention-style election by phone:
> > > > |
> > > > | - the secretariat emails a ballot (list of nominees) to the NC
> > > members
> > > > |for reference;
> > > > | - the secretariat of the NC calls the roll for each round
> (rotating
> > > the
> > > > |list so that NC members are called in a different, random sequence
> for
> > > each
> > > > |round)
> > > > | - each NC member states his/her vote when called;
> > > > | - the secretariat tallies and announces the results;
> > > > | - the secretariat determines and announces which name(s) to
> > > eliminate;
> > > > | - the process is repeated until one nominee gets 10 or more
> votes.
> > > > |
> > > > |Under this scenario, the NC members will be aware of each others'
> votes.
> > > > |The call could, but need not, be webcast.
> > > > |
> > > > |One option would be to conduct the votes for the three Director seats
> on
> > > > |three different days, to break a single, long teleconference into
> > > smaller
> > > > |sessions and to allow the NC members to discuss, reflect and consult
> > > between
> > > > |the teleconferences. The teleconferences could be scheduled on three
> > > > |consecutive days, or on a Monday, Wednesday, Friday sequence.
> > > > |
> > > > |
> > > > |BY EMAIL
> > > > |
> > > > |To conduct a convention-style election by email:
> > > > |
> > > > | - the secretariat emails a ballot to each NC member, along with
> a
> > > > |deadline for the ballot to be received;
> > > > | - each NC member emails his/her vote back to the secretariat;
> > > > | - the secretariat tallies the votes and prepares a new (reduced)
> > > list
> > > > |of nominees;
> > > > | - emails the results and the new ballot to the NC, with the
> > > deadline
> > > > |for the next ballot to be received.
> > > > |
> > > > |The disadvantage of this method is that it will be time-consuming and
> at
> > > > |least some NC members will likely miss the deadline for at least some
> > > rounds
> > > > |of voting. At least 24 hours will be required for each round, unless
> > > the NC
> > > > |members agree in advance to check their email (for example) every 8
> > > hours
> > > > |over the course of a 3-day period.
> > > > |
> > > > |
> > > > |BY TELEPHONE AND EMAIL
> > > > |
> > > > |To conduct a convention-style election by telephone and email, the NC
> > > uses
> > > > |the rules for a telephone election (above), but NC members send their
> > > votes
> > > > |to the DNSO secretariat in real time by email. This allows for
> secret
> > > > |voting, but may actually lengthen the teleconference due to (i) the
> > > > |unreliability of email transmission, and (ii) the time required for
> the
> > > > |secretariat to read the emails and tally the votes.
> > > > |
> > > > |
> > > > |BY ONLINE VOTING INTERFACE
> > > > |
> > > > |Don mentioned the possibility of a specially designed online voting
> > > > |interface. Perhaps he could post some details.
> > > > |
> > > > |
> > > > |
> > > > |[The above is a rough outline. I'll be happy to elaborate or modify
> > > based
> > > > |on comments from the NC.]
> > > > |
> > > > |
> > > > |--Andrew
> > > >
> >