<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Request from the GA
Erica,
I have been working quite hard on the Secretariat internal
procedures and have one of it available for your consultation
(it is with all implementation details):
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/2001.SECga-vote-handling.html
The GA vote request for 4 weeks of the strong Secretariat support.
The nomination process lasts 1 week, the acceptances closes 3 hours
after nomination's closure, the endorsement process lasts 1 week,
the vote itself lasts 1 week. Altogether it is 4 weeks of planned
activities, which must be executed on time, by a well trained
engineer, knowing a lot about DNSO structure and functionning.
Some actions must be done on the DNSO server under root privileges,
which has impact on security considerations. The DNSO web site tree
includes approximately 600 pages plus more than 3400 pages in public
mailing list archives, it is quite a huge site, bigger than ICANN
(the ICANN web site tree includes approximately 1100 pages and
has no public mailing lists archives).
Any manipulation of the DNSO web site tree request for an excellent
knowledge of its implementation and cross-dependencies, as well as
about naming scheme used within the web site.
Some voting service providers on the market request approx 1500 USD
for one ballot sent to a small electorate (two hundred).
The ccTLD used such a service once, it included to post a ballot
to the given electorate, calculate results, and provide result note.
It was exclusif of any nomination and endorsement process,
neither public records of votes as provided on the DNSO.
The ccTLD staff worked full time to accompagny the external company
providing voting service to act with ccTLD group. As far as I remember
amongst most cricial was information and verification of e-mail
address on answers (without the key authentification system
used on the DNSO, you cannot know if the answer is from a valid address
or a faked one). Also the ccTLD staff drafted the web pages.
The vote system developped for the DNSO follows the real life,
has a smart mechanism to ensure the ballots come from Electorate
and no more that one per member. Voting ballots are sent
to the whole Electorate by e-mail, then allowing even a very busy
people to cast votes. Four weeks are necessary for the complete
process, from nomination of candidates to the vote results.
I got congratulated several times for the seriousness of votes
used at the DNSO as well as the outstanding quality of vote reports.
The secretariat services were estimated for one GA Chair election
per year as well as one ICANN Board election per year. However
it would be appropriate to provide it to the GA as often as requested.
It seems to me that the electronic vote is indeed an essential tool
for an electronic society, and the DNSO GA (whatever difficulties it
might have) is a life exemple worth to be considered and supported.
The GA as it is is far away from it was expected in Bylaws in 1999,
but it is the only open structure within ICANN where users may discuss.
It has tremendous value.
The DNSO needs resources to function and the permanent staff,
it cannot continue without solid group of people, and without
perspective.
As for your question about hours - I let you estimate from the
document quoted above.
Elisabeth
--
> From erica.roberts@bigpond.com Fri Jun 15 05:18 MET 2001
> Message-ID: <014001c0f55a$bfa50a60$f92f8690@pcgz505series>
> From: "erica" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>
> To: "Council@Dnso.Org" <council@dnso.org>,
> "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
> Subject: Re: [council] Request from the GA
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 13:19:20 +0800
>
> Thank you for raising this. I concurr with your suggestion that we need to
> put in place procedures to provide guidance to both the Secretariat and the
> GA re the availability of support services.
> Meanwhile, it would be useful if you could advise us:
> * of the time (hours) you would expect to be required to meet this latest
> request from the GA; and
> * whether this can be managed within the current budget allocated for
> Secretariat services.
>
> Regards,
> erica
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
> To: <council@dnso.org>
> Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 2:30 AM
> Subject: [council] Request from the GA
>
>
> >
> >
> > Philip,
> > Council Colleagues,
> >
> > I wish to have your guidance on how to deal with the GA requests,
> > I receive more and more of them.
> > It is not clear to myself when the requests from the GA may be
> > accepted and when not, and what the procedures are.
> >
> > Apparently the GA Chair is requesting myself to set up something
> > very similar to the recent GA Chair election, cf
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GAchair.html
> >
> > The GA Chair selection process by the GA lasted for 6 weeks.
> >
> > Elisabeth
> >
> > --
> > | From webmaster@babybows.com Thu Jun 14 18:02 MET 2001
> > | From: "Danny Younger" <webmaster@babybows.com>
> > | To: "DNSO Secretariat" <DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org>
> > | Subject: RE: Nomination Process
> > | Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 12:01:32 -0400
> > | MIME-Version: 1.0
> > | Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> > | X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> > | X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> > | X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
> > | Importance: Normal
> > |
> > | Dear Elisabeth,
> > |
> > | The Names Council in Stockholm asked the General Assembly to designate
> its
> > | own representative to the Review Task Force which (among other things)
> will
> > | be dealing with the issue of the Individuals' Constituency:
> > |
> > |
> > | 1. Sheppard: A task force makes sense. I might volunteer to
> chair
> > | it, if that was acceptable to others.
> > | 2. Swinehart: Consultation.
> > | . Stubbs: Need to include the chairman of the GA.
> > | . Swinehart: A good suggestion.
> > | 3. Swinehart: GA chair (consider changes), Individuals
> Constituency
> > | (determine next steps), language diversity (determine costs, and make a
> > | recommendation for a cost-effective means for making translations).
> > | 4. Swinehart: Perhaps we should take proposals from DNSO, and
> > | evaluate the various proposals.
> > | 5. Stubbs: Goal is to include some representative of the GA.
> This
> > | may or might not be the GA chair. "GA chair or designee."
> > |
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/scribe-nc-060201.html
> > |
> > | The GA has expressed a desire to select such a representative rather
> than to
> > | have the Chair appoint such a representative.
> > | The Secretariat is being asked to prepare a nomination/voting procedure
> > | whereby such a representative may be chosen.
> > |
> > | You may wish to remind the GA that their selected representative will be
> > | attending to discussions on the following:
> > |
> > |
> > | * Consultation -- Review the recommendations of WG D and the Review task
> > | force and working group report and implement a means of outreach and
> > | stakeholder consultation with built-in mechanisms for fulfilling the
> > | objectives.
> > | * GA Chair -- Review the current system of election for the General
> Assembly
> > | chair and propose changes if required.
> > | * Individuals Constituency -- Review the need, uniqueness, potential
> > | contribution and representiveness of an individual domain name holder's
> > | constituency.
> > | * Language diversity -- Recommend cost effective means to provide
> language
> > | diversity in the context of DNSO decisions.
> > | * Consensus -- Recommend to the NC a practical definition of consensus
> for
> > | the purposes of NC consultation activities.
> > | http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-plan/Arc00/doc00003.doc
> > |
> > | Please let me know if I may be of further assistance.
> > |
> > <snip>
>
>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|