Re: [ga] Voting options for the Verisign deal

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 12:43:21 +1300, Joop wrote:
>At 07:48 15/03/01 +1300, DPF wrote:
>>As much as I personally support (c) I do not think it should be
>>included as a voting option.  The staff and Verisign have made 100%
>>clear that it is (A) or (b) only and we risk diluting the results by
>>having a third option which has been ruled out.  If people do opt for
>>the status quo then perhaps there may be future opportunities to look
>>at enhancements but this is unknown.
>>
>Should option C (re-open negotiations) be included in a single set of
>options or should it be part of a sub-option that reads: 
>"In case there would a possibility for the Board to re-negotiate the
>Verisign contract then my preference would be 
>A. , B ,  or C",
>while the main option reads: "Assuming that no re-negotiations is possible,
>my preference is A,  or B." ?

As a sub-option I have no problems.  I want to avoid a situation where
the community says 80% want a delay, 15% want the status quo and 5%
want the new contract and this can be taken as a minority supporting
the status quo.

If however we can have result that say 82% want a time extension but
if none is possible then 68% want status quo and 32% want the new
proposal (all numbers examples) that will help make things clearer.

I don't think we should be voting on this yet - lets have more
discussion on the pros and cons and then run the poll over four days
or so.  It would be useful to have someone formally ask each
constituency chair to consider doing the same for their constituency.

>The NCDNHC is already gearing up for a vote, I understand.

Excellent.

>For the constituencies present in the GA it would be possible to enter
>voting options as specifically intended for each constituency voter.
>Like: "I(S)P constituency vote here" , "registrar constituency vote here",
>etc.

I think one should only do this if asked by a constituency.  Each can
organise their own election as they see fit. 

>With web-based voting this can be easily done. In this way, the GA can take
>the lead, for the benefit of some constituencies that may not get their act
>together in time.

The GA Chair needs to decide how the GA will vote.  I would suggest
there is some merit in having a voluntary constituency declaration as
such a breakdown may be useful analysis.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html