<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Time table and problems with voting during travel
Tony, Marilyn,
NC Colleagues,
The NC vote to elect ICANN Board Directors was considered of
utmost importance since the origin of the DNSO and myself I
took the necessary steps to be sure the Secretariat is able
to face all possible difficulties in an adequate and responsible
manner.
The voting mechanism (Convention Style) request for presence
of 21 NC Members, scattered all over the world, for few consecutive
days for a real time secret electronic vote. With those constraints,
the probability is very high that several NC Members will need
proxies during vote.
Past experience indicates that some NC Members may be traveling
during the vote and still willing to vote by themselves, but sometimes
without an access to the e-mail system. It also happen in 1999 that
one of voting persons was traveling to a country without an easy
telephone access, and the Secretariat had to call a hotel in
Beijing and ask for a room number provided by a third party.
As you see, the spectra of possible cases is large.
To answer all those situations it is not only necessary
to grant proxies, but also to allow for votes by telephone.
In August 1999 the Secretariat installed three telephone lines
dedicated to vote, all with full international access, one of
them outside of the PABX (as a backup in case of PABX failure,
no matter how small probability it may have). The subscription was
taken at Genesys for a private teleconference system, with a
dedicated telephone number allowing the Secretariat to set up
a teleconference on the fly, should that necessity arise (it did
in 1999, we had a glitch in the election of the third director).
With regard to the vote by e-mail: the established rule is that
any NC Member may request for one or two proxies. Then, during
the vote electronic ballots are sent to all NC Members and to
their proxies (proxy information is indicated on ballot).
The proxies answers are taken into account if and only if a
NC Member cannot vote by himself.
With regard to the vote by telephone: if a NC Member wishes to cast
a vote by himself, he may call the Secretariat or may request the
Secretariat to call him. Over the phone call, the Secretariat
will recognize the voice of calling person (we hope so), then get
the NC vote, and subsequently generate an electronic backup ballot
for that person.
The NC Members have been receiving recently the telephone numbers
- this service is provided by the Secretariat to facilitate
you a necessary negotiations with fellow colleagues, but also
because the Secretariat needs to know how to reach you in all
difficult situations.
I encourage you to have a look on the 1999 vote in
http://www.dnso.org/votes/vote02/NCvote02index.html
It will give you the real example of all possible situations
(at least I hope so, but we may have new surprises ...).
You will see all proxies, and how the vote is handled when
several answers for the same person-ballot arrive.
The call to China is in
http://www.dnso.org/votes/vote02/Archives/msg00217.html
To be sure I was not confusing too much - the vote to elect ICANN
Board director is secret, but once the results are accepted
by ICANN the full record of who voted for whom is discarded.
If you have any additional question, please let me know.
Elisabeth
--
> From owner-council@dnso.org Sun Jul 15 00:17 MET 2001
> From: tony.ar.holmes@bt.com
> Message-ID: <5B81FD3DEFEDD211B07C00606DE1FC3708130F27@mclmsent07.lon.bt.com>
> To: mcade@att.com, kstubbs@digitel.net, council@dnso.org
> Cc: touton@icann.org
> Subject: RE: [council] Time table and problems with voting during travel
> Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 23:15:06 +0100
> MIME-version: 1.0
>
> Marilyn/Ken et al
> I think you've hit the nail on the head here. An undertaking to represent
> true DNSO views should certainly be viewed as a positive step, Ken's
> statement 'that board members are obligated to step beyond their
> constituencies' is a fundamental requirement of the ICANN process. Dare I
> suggest that currently the required linkage between the DNSO and its Board
> Members could be considered rather 'fragile'? Without meaning to be
> critical of any of our existing Board members, from the ISP perspective,
> currently we have no Board member from our constituency, however some Board
> members have made a point of joining us for some of our sessions at ICANN
> meetings, others we've never seen. I fully appreciate they can't (and
> probably shouldn't) attend all constituency sessions, but I've always viewed
> DNSO representation at Board level as an area that requires some attention
> in order to become fully effective, and have yet to be convinced otherwise.
> To some of us it now seems as though ICANN has been around for a long time,
> but in truth many aspects of ICANN still have a long way to go on the
> learning curve. Expecting anything other than that just isn't pragmatic in
> such a highly charged environment.
>
> I also concur with your point Marilyn, that e-mail campaigns could be used
> to make specific campaign pledges to constituencies which may then be self
> defeating. I'd go a step further and suggest that if anyone played it that
> way, not only would they damage their chances they'd also damage those
> constituencies they purported to represent. To me this just fuels my desire
> to understand where candidates are coming from. Asking them to go on record
> in a manner that facilitates a degree of accountability should be viewed as
> a plus.
>
> I'd also appreciate some clarity why proxy's are currently ruled out. Surely
> the aim is to ensure we adopt the best representative, open, fair electoral
> process possible. At the moment we seem to be inhibiting that by our own
> processes. Is it possible to review this to see if we can establish a
> system that facilitates proxy voting through a mechanism which provides all
> the required safeguards?
>
> Tony
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [SMTP:mcade@att.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 7:11 PM
> > To: 'Ken Stubbs'; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; council@dnso.org
> > Cc: 'Louis Touton'
> > Subject: RE: [council] Time table and problems with voting during
> > travel
> >
> > Ken, if you mean the full NC views, then you and I have no disagreement...
> > :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
> > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 1:39 PM
> > To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; council@dnso.org
> > Cc: 'Louis Touton'
> > Subject: Re: [council] Time table and problems with voting during travel
> >
> >
> > fellow council members...
> >
> > If i may "dip my oar into the water" here please
> >
> > 1. some concerns about the timing of the election... given the process,
> > there is no guarantee that a face-to-face election can necessarily be
> > accomplished.. (much of that will be determined by the number of
> > candidates)
> >
> > also there is the issue of "consulting with the constituancies" between
> > rounds and allowing for adequate amount of time for any votes to be
> > tendered
> > by names council members not in attendence (as they still would have the
> > right to vote and "cannot" designate proxies to anyone.. (to the best of
> > my
> > knowledge)
> >
> > these issues need to be both clarified.
> >
> > as to your comments at the end of your message Marilyn.....
> > although i fully agree with you that board members are obligated to step
> > beyond their constituancies;
> > the underlying basis behind the requirement for electing ICANN board
> > members
> > from each supporting organization lends itself to the concept of the ICANN
> > board members from "our" DNSO being fully committed to representing OUR
> > perspectives and issues as they relate to the ICANN activities and our
> > support organizations respective role in the process in their capacity as
> > ICANN board members
> >
> > it is incumbent on any proposed candidate to both committ to this
> > representation as well as demonstrate by both "past, as well as "current"
> > actions, a willingness,desire & FULL committment to the DNSO .
> >
> > ken stubbs
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
> > To: <tony.ar.holmes@bt.com>; <Paul.Kane@reacto.com>; <ceo@vany.org>;
> > <council@dnso.org>; "'Philip Sheppard'" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
> > Cc: "'Louis Touton'" <touton@icann.org>
> > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 12:52 PM
> > Subject: [council] Time table and problems with voting during travel
> >
> >
> > > Folks, I'm pretty sure that Philip Sheppard is on holiday until next
> > week,
> > > and do not know that he has online access. In any case, this problem is
> > the
> > > kind which the full NC membership can deal with and come up with a
> > > recommendation. Timing has crept up on us. that happens. So, what do we
> > do
> > > now?
> > >
> > > As I understand the situation, we have a problem in having sufficient
> > time
> > > to have nominations, support, and voting. Let's give some online
> > > consideration to making a request to the ICANN legal team (Louie, that's
> > > you, right) about what the options are. We should strive to ensure that
> > all
> > > NC reps can expect to be able to vote. Their constituencies expect that
> > > representation from them. As the NC, let's see if we can make some
> > specific
> > > proposals, quickly assess them, and put forward a recommendation/request
> > to
> > > Louie about how to achieve.
> > >
> > > For instance, can any of the early phases be shortened, and what are
> > those
> > > consequences? I personally am opposed to shortening the phases of the
> > > election. I will take further consultation with the BC members, as will
> > the
> > > rest of the BC reps, but on first take... I think that is a bad idea and
> > > that postponing the election creates fewer problems. I regret that "we"
> > > didn't notice this conflict before, but you know what? We are all
> > > volunteers, trying to do our best, and stuff like this happens. Let's
> > think
> > > through some solutions and approaches.
> > >
> > > Elections need to be given full attention and time needed. Shortening
> > the
> > > timing of any of the phases gives me some caution. But, I'm open to
> > hearing
> > > what others think, and need to hear back from the BC constituency, which
> > > Grant and I will undertake doing.
> > >
> > > Can we hold the vote in Uruguay and not disadvantage the NC members not
> > in
> > > attendance.? I don't know about that, but here's a question: Can we
> > find
> > > out who is attending; who is calling in? Secretariat could send a poll
> > > immediately to verify who plans to attend; who is firm; who is
> > tentative;
> > > who is not attending. That would help to determine practicality of face
> > to
> > > face to election. Then, IF face to face, we would need to schedule time
> > and
> > > room, and dial in for those not in Montevideo... Is that possible? I
> > woul
> > d
> > > assume so, but it might mean that we need to conflict with other
> > meetings.
> > > Is that a good idea? Maybe...
> > >
> > > Is it better to get the campaign period out of the way before, so that
> > the
> > > rest of the work can proceed? then hold the election after the meeting.
> > > Sounds like a possibility to me... what do others think?
> > >
> > >
> > > But, can I question, though, that proxies are not possible? We'll have
> > some
> > > problem, regardless of when the election is held, about someone not
> > being
> > > available. If a NC member is not available -- live goes on; birth,
> > death,
> > > taxes... etc. A crisis will arise at some point.... Is it not possible
> > to
> > > designate someone from the Constituency, then, to carry the proxy for a
> > NC
> > > member vote? My memory isn't great, but I thought I remembered some
> > kind
> > of
> > > designation during the last round of voting due to unusual
> > circumstances?
> > >
> > > Louie, my personal archives have expired... but I'm sure that ICANN's
> > > haven't. Or the Secretariat's. Is there any precedent?
> > >
> > > Looking forward to other's thoughts.
> > >
> > > On email campaigns, I don't know what you mean and would like to hear
> > more.
> > > We are seeking board members who will assume broad and diverse
> > > representation about ICANN's issues. Putting people in the position of
> > > making campaign promises to different constitutiences is a self
> > defeating
> > > approach. Board members are, I hope, elected because they step beyond
> > their
> > > individual perspectives and are able to look to the good of the whole,
> > > affected by ICANN. I know that not all share my view about the
> > importance
> > > of this. One can ensure that all views are heard, and even advocate
> > that
> > > some views are being heard well enough... but as a Board member,
> > ensuring
> > > that the broad spectrum of interests is respected, reflected, and
> > supported
> > > is a key attribute.
> > >
> > > I suggest that the candidates post statements to the list, as last time
> > > around. There's work for each elected NC rep to do .... each of the BC
> > reps
> > > is responsible to their own constituency to undertake outreach, take
> > input,
> > > listen to, and seek to educate/provide information to their constituency
> > > members. In order to do that effectively, statements from the candidates
> > are
> > > essential.
> > >
> > > It may be that statements of endorsement are also useful within a
> > > constituency. I leave that to each constituency to determine.
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: tony.ar.holmes@bt.com [mailto:tony.ar.holmes@bt.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 5:03 AM
> > > To: Paul.Kane@reacto.com; ceo@vany.org; council@dnso.org
> > > Subject: RE: [council] Time table for ICANN Board election this year
> > >
> > >
> > > Paul
> > > I very much support your point regarding written e-mail campaigns, we
> > should
> > > all be judged against something more substantial than verbal statements
> > that
> > > quickly lose their accountability as time passes, (maybe you and I are
> > > feeling particularly paranoid because of recent events in the UK!)
> > >
> > > Regarding the election, from a personally selfish standpoint I don't
> > favour
> > > the election being held prior to Montevideo. Its purely down to the
> > point
> > > that I hadn't really taken in that proxy's were not applicable and I'll
> > be
> > > out of contact from 13th to 31st August.
> > >
> > > Whichever course we choose it appears somebody will be disadvantaged.
> > The
> > > timing of this election is far from desirable. I hope we can find a way
> > to
> > > stop this happening in the future.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Tony
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Paul M. Kane [SMTP:Paul.Kane@reacto.com]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 6:42 AM
> > > > To: ceo@vany.org; names council
> > > > Subject: Re: [council] Time table for ICANN Board election this year
> > > >
> > > > Appreciating Peter's point - we have just held a Parliamentary
> > Election
> > > > here in the UK and what candidates _said_ in "person"
> > > > before the election and what they have _done_ after the election are
> > two
> > > > very different things!!
> > > >
> > > > Further, I am concerned about the logistics. Some of the NC members
> > will
> > > > be travelling/touring after the Montevideo meeting
> > > > and possibly unable to take part in the vote. Proxy's are not
> > applicable
> > > > in voting for Board members.
> > > >
> > > > With the risk of non-participation of NC representatives much lower if
> > the
> > > > election is before the travel to Montevideo and to
> > > > ensure a more open, transparent and genuine election, I would prefer
> > to
> > > > see written - email - campaigns (always useful to
> > > > see if the pledges have been achieved!!) with the election concluded
> > > > BEFORE Montevideo.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to support Ken Stubbs/Milton Mueller proposal to conduct
> > the
> > > > election BEFORE Montevideo ... eg: 28th August
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Vany Martinez wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Peter:
> > > > >
> > > > > Whatever schedule for me that complies with what you
> > > > > said here, it is fine for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Best Regards
> > > > > Vany
> > > > > --- Peter de Blanc <pdeblanc@usvi.net> wrote:
> > > > > > I would suggest that the nominations be conducted
> > > > > > PRIOR to the
> > > > > > Montevideo meeting, with the actual vote to be
> > > > > > conducted AFTER
> > > > > > Montevideo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This would allow for face-to-face presentation of
> > > > > > candidate agendas and
> > > > > > positions, and an opportunity to campaign.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Peter de Blanc
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: owner-council@dnso.org
> > > > > > [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org] On Behalf
> > > > > > Of Milton Mueller
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 2:06 PM
> > > > > > To: Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr;
> > > > > > kstubbs@digitel.net;
> > > > > > council@dnso.org; DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [council] Time table for ICANN Board
> > > > > > election this year
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree. Let's move it up even further to last of
> > > > > > August.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> > > > > > <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr> 07/12/01
> > > > > > >>> 13:39 PM >>>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would not recommend to vote in September 4th-6th,
> > > > > > because several of
> > > > > > us will be on the way to Montevideo, or already
> > > > > > sitting on meetings in
> > > > > > Montevideo (some starts on 5th morning). To be safe
> > > > > > I would avoid any
> > > > > > date in September prior to Montevideo.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would it be better ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Elisabeth
> > > > > > --
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > we are pushing our backs to the wall here !!!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > timetable is quite difficult as many will be
> > > > > > travelling on the 11 & 12
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > of september and it may be difficult to assemble
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > personally i believe it would be better to move
> > > > > > the whole process up
> > > > > > > one week and start the nominations july 16 and the
> > > > > > election on august
> > > > > > > 28 or september 4th -6th (remember we are only
> > > > > > voting for 1 person
> > > > > > > and could have 2 votes/day if we wished
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > comments please ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ken stubbs
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > DNSO Secretariat wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Council,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The term of Amadeu Abril i Abril, ICANN Board
> > > > > > Director elected by
> > > > > > > > the DNSO Names Council in 1999 expires on 30
> > > > > > September 2001.
> > > > > > > > The remaining two DNSO elected Directors are
> > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty
> > > > > > > > (LatinAC) and Jonathan Cohen (NorthAm).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This year election will be open to candidates
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > 3 geographic regions: Europe, AsiaPac and
> > > > > > Africa.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > According to the procedures for election, the
> > > > > > proposed time table,
> > > > > > > > validated with Philip Sheppard is:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nominations = 3 weeks:
> > > > > > > > Start: Monday 23 July 2001
> > > > > > > > End: Monday 13 August 2001
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Endorsements = 3 weeks:
> > > > > > > > Start: Monday 13 August 2001
> > > > > > >> End: Monday 03 September 2001
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Break for Montevideo ICANN Meetings
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Vote by the NC = 4 days:
> > > > > > > > Start: Wednesday 12 September 2001
> > > > > > > > End: Saturday 15 September 2001 - telecon to
> > > > > > confirm results
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We MUST provide results to ICANN no later than
> > > > > > 16 September (it was
> > > > > > > > checked with Louis Touton last year for legal
> > > > > > reasons).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The ICANN Board election associated web pages
> > > > > > are under preparation
> > > > > > > > and will be ready next week.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > DNSO Secretariat
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > =====
> > > > > Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
> > > > > Information Technology Specialist
> > > > > Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
> > > > > http://www.sdnp.org.pa e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
> > > > >
> > > > > Go to http://www.getpaid4.com/cgi-bin/emailpanel.cgi?userid=659401
> > to
> > > > receive FREE newsletters via email!
> > > > > Go to http://www.getpaid4.com?sheharhore to make $$$ using YOUR OWN
> > > > computer and sigining subscribers in YOUR OWN emails!
> > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
> > > > > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> > >
> > >
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|