Re: [ga] vote appeal

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

Eric --

	You clearly feel wronged by the process here, but I'm honestly a
little unsure why.  As far as the "ten endorsements" issue is concerned,
the fact is that you *were* included on the ballot, so even if bad
decisions were made, they didn't end up harming you.  And the fact is that
the rules *weren't* changed after I decided to drop out -- the watchdog
committee decided to continue the election under the old rules.  The only
new thing that happened was that voters were sent duplicate copies of
their ballots in case they wanted to change their votes; the ability to
make a change was a right voters already had under the old rules.

	You made a good showing, but not enough people voted for you, and
there was no set of rules under which you could have been deemed to have
won -- Danny and Patrick each had more first-place votes than you, more
second-place votes, and more third-place votes.  There's no shame in
fighting the good fight but not getting enough votes to win.

Jon


On Wed, 11 Apr 2001, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Yesterday I posted the following to this list and to Mr.Gaetano,
> 
>  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/msg00580.html
> I have received no response.
> Today I sent a private email requesting some type of response I got
> none.
> 
> I looked to see if there was an objection or appeal process, there is
> not one. There is absolutely no reference to 10 nominations being needed
> to run for chair. And I think Mr. Corliss had all 10 of his lined up
> when that was announced. hmm.
> 
> I then looked at the rules and found this:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.GA-chair-election-rules-v0.2.html
> SELECTION OF THE ALTERNATE CHAIR
> 
> The same process as for chair is used, but the candidate selected for
> chair is eliminated before the counting starts.
> 
> (NOTE: This is likely to be a different candidate than the runner-up in
> the selection procedure for chair, for instance when 90% of the
> electorate
> rank one person first and another second, while the remaining 10% vote
> for a third. Re-running the process is considered more likely to select
> a
> team that can work well together.)
> 
> This shows that there was no need to change any rules, the process
> itself would handle JW's withdrawal. And that we are supposed to have a
> whole other subsequent election for Alternate Chair
> 
>  Then I looked at the watchdog list and found this;
>  http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-watchdog/Arc00/
> 
> Which shows the committe knew that they would change the outcome of the
> election if they changed the rules, allowing for revoting.
> 
> This is disgusting.  I can understand why these people do not want me as
> alternate, but why did they do so much to get Mr. Corliss?  Could it be
> his association with a competitor to ICANN.
> 
> The clock is ticking I cannot ignore this!
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com


--
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