Re: [council] The Way Forward - Choices

["Masanobu Katoh" <mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com>]

Dear Dennis,
cc: All names Councils,

Thank you very much for working hard during weekend on this difficult issue.

First of all, I like to emphasize the importance of separating procedural
issue
from any election politics and tactics. Unfortunately, I already hear some
speculation that which option among three benefits who-- kind of argument.
I believe that the priority for all NCs' at this point is to maintain the
fairness and transparency of the process. I am sure all NCs' agree on this
point.

1. Yes, we have three options. And it is very difficult to select one
because each
of them may cause some dissatisfaction to some of the people.

Option (1), to restart the third election from the beginning, sounds fair,
but I have
one question. I understand that, from your following fact finding, you are
respecting
the intention of the voter:

"I have examined the record carefully, and taken advice from Andrew
McLaughlin, and I am satisfied that the voter's intent was clear, that the
voter's intended vote was miscounted (due to a subsequent vote, made in
error), and that the miscount was not entirely the fault of the voter."

If we follow the "respecting the voter's intention" theory, I feel that the
logical
conclusion is option (2), which also respects the voter's intention to vote
to
certain person.

The problem of option (1) is, as many can identify, the situation that
the result of the revoting or the round 1, may be very different from the
Friday's one. I do not know, how we can explain the situation to those
who would be materially affected by such a result.

I do not mean I am supporting option (2) because I am not sure about
the process of the fact finding. I am not sure the "respecting the voter's
intention" theory is the rule or not neither.

If we do not take that theory, of course the option (3) is a valid option.

(Suggestions)

1. I have a series of procedural (legal) questions.

Although you reported.that we, NCs', have the power to decide on this
procedural issue, I want to reconfirm this. On what rules or legal
interpretation we can draw that conclusion (assuming that there is no
bylaws or other written rules related to this kind of procedural issue)?

Who can finally confirm the factual finding? Can NCs' make decision
based on the factual finding without being involved in that process?
I do not mean to question your finding, but I am talking about more of the
due
process argument. In other word, should we know more about the fact and
examine before we make any decision?

If we have power and responsibility to decide the rules and next step
from here, what are the possible rules to apply to this situation? Is my
analysis above (among three options) right?

I hope that our legal counsel joins us for the call and also gives us detail
legal opinion on these questions.

2. We need a clear confidentiality agreement among NC's

This procedural issue of election is a serious one. We have to use
our most caution that the process will not be misunderstood by the people
other than ourselves. We need a clear basic non-disclosure agreement among
us as well as the agreement on the scope of ( or maybe no) disclosure of the
fact and the next procedure.

3.  We need some time after we agree on the procedural issues and before the
next vote. Because of the sensitivity of all issues, I do not think it
appropriate
for all NCs' to discuss the possible outcome choosing different options
in detail at this point. Such discussion would cause speculation and
possibly
distort the election process as I said at the beginning.

Only after we become confident about the next step, we should fully
discuss with each constituency about their preferences among candidate.
Therefore I think we need some time after our procedural decision and
before the next voting. I agree to Dennis, that we do not vote today even
if we can agree on the procedural issues today.

Thank you very much again dealing with these difficult issues.

I will join at 15 o'clock call,  but because of a meeting I need to chair,
I may come in and out during the call.

Best regards,

Katoh
-----------------------------------------------
           Masanobu Katoh, General Manager
        Fujitsu Limited, Washington, D.C. Office
        Phone (202) 331-1766 (direct)
                 (202) 331-8750 (main)
        Fax    (202) 331-8797
  email: mkatoh@wdc.fujitsu.com / IOG00645@nifty.ne.jp

----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis Jennings <Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie>
To: Names Council (E-mail) <council@dnso.org>
Cc: Andrew McLaughlin (E-mail) <mclaughlin@pobox.com>; Joe Sims (E-mail)
<Joe_Sims@jonesday.com>
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 1999 3:59 PM
Subject: [council] The Way Forward - Choices


> Colleagues,
>
> In order to try and expedite our discussions tomorrow, let me outline the
choices I believe we have.  There are three
>
> 1.  We can declare the third election void and re-run the third election
> from the start.  This is what I recommended before.  This is consistent
with Andrew McLaughlin's advice.
>
> 2.  We can declare the first count a miscount - and redo the count for the
> first round, declare the result and move on to round 2.  This is
consistent with Andrew McLaughlin's advice.
>
> 3.  We can let the votes as published stand on the basis that the
erroneous
> vote was counted and that vote cannot now be changed.  This is NOT
consistent with Andrew McLaughlin's advice.
>
> Thanks
> Dennis