RE: [council] Name council vote - ballot b10

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

Ok, My 2 cents worth...

The Names Council is a channel for advising ICANN board, and we
(members) have a responsibility to conduct our business in an open and
transparent manner. 

While some of our discussions, that is, those prior to arriving at a
consensus-should be conducted in an "unimpeachable manner".

Finally, we do not take that many votes.

Therefore, I suggest that we arrange such votes to take place
face-to-face or in a teleconference.

Peter de Blanc


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@dnso.org [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org] On Behalf
Of Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 10:35 PM
To: 'tony.ar.holmes@bt.com'; 'DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org';
'council@dnso.org'
Subject: RE: [council] Name council vote - ballot b10


Tony, I appreciate your post for a number of reasons. Learning about a
technical failure after the fact is an all too reoccurring experience
for all of us as we become more and more net-connected, but the software
tools fail to keep up with our demands/needs.

At this time, given the state of technology, I don't support changing
the system to email votes for the NC. We don't take THAT many votes. We
can manage them in a conf. call...for now.

I support keeping the system as it is for now, with possible exploration
of alternatives which may be more secure; notify the sender if a
reject/fail to send occurs, etc.

Some may believe that I say that because I support waiving the
restriction on the chair restanding. I say it ALSO because I believe it
in the long term interest of the NC.


MC

-----Original Message-----
From: tony.ar.holmes@bt.com [mailto:tony.ar.holmes@bt.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 6:10 PM
To: DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org; council@dnso.org
Subject: [council] Name council vote - ballot b10


Council Colleagues
Having managed to finally get back on line today, it was with surprise
and regret that I found that my vote on the NC Rules of Procedure had
not been recorded. Indeed it took a while before I finally realised that
the recorded abstention was down to me!

I had in fact voted over the weekend before leaving for Switzerland, but
had done so in a period when I was experiencing major software problems
with a new PC. This resulted in the need for a complete software rebuild
(the second in two weeks) prior to my departure. Its subsequently taken
hours on the phone to my support staff before I managed to regain full
access.  Seems the problems were due to a couple of software programmes
I was running in background that caused compatibility problems with the
latest builds. However tracking that down was a long, painful
experience!

I'd like to apologise to you all for the problems this has caused. I've
always had reservations over the use of electronic ballots conducted
without adequate validation/authentication procedures. This experience
has certainly hardened that view. I note Louis Touton's recent advice
which also reflects on this and his advice appears both timely and
helpful.

Whilst many of us schedule our lives through the use of electronic
devices, even with good back-up procedures, experiences like this expose
the weaknesses that still exist. The old rule that 'anything is only as
secure as its weakest link' certainly proved correct in this case.
Having been the one to fall foul of the e-mail vote I therefore have a
very different view to some of those I've just read on the mailing list
suggesting the rules are changed. I'm sure there are alternatives which
can take account of the fact that we're spread across the globe, all
busy people in different time zones. In the circumstances I found myself
I wouldn't have been able to check for an electronic receipt, (I
couldn't get access through the firewall) but access to a web site or
even voice message that informed me that some votes hadn't been received
would have been enough to prompt me to check. Is it possible that a web
site just stating the number of votes received by a set time could
provide some additional safeguards?  Another alternative is perhaps to
divert receipt messages to a web based e-mail account that can always be
accessed, but that isn't fool proof either.

Again, my sincere apologies for breaking the system.

Regards
Tony