Re: [ga] Watch Dog Committee

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

Hello Patrick and fellow GA readers,

Patrick Corliss wrote on 29.11.01, 13:46:35:
> The members to the Watchdog Committee in 2002 election are:
>         o Roberto Gaetano
>         o Harald Alvestrand
>         o Kent Crispin
>         o Dany Vandromme
>         o Alexander Svensson
>         o Izumi Aizu
>
> Roberto, Harald, Kent, Dany, Alexander, and Izumi have been on this committee
> for a long time.  I am not sure whether any of them play another role of some
> sort in ICANN/DNSO operations.

And I am not sure what "ICANN/DNSO operations" means -- 
it sounds like undercover agent's work. :) Speaking for
myself, I don't operate ICANN, and I don't think any
of the other people on the list does. 

> As usual these decisions are made for us.  I am concerned that these decisions
> are made for and on our behalf by Philip Sheppard and Elizabeth Porteneuve
> (who is acting under his instructions).  Of course, these processes must be
> more partipative by the GA membership.

This seems to be a misunderstanding. The watchdogs have
not been selected by the NC nor by the Secretariat.
It is up to the outgoing Chair to ensure that at least
two election watchdogs are ready to check the ballots.

> It is up to us, the voters, to determine who we want to review our votes.
>
> At the moment I am not sure WHO the DNSO Secreatariat is.  But I've asked this
> before without getting any answer.  I'm sending whoever a copy.  Can we have a
> reply, please?
>
> BTW I don't know why there should be so many scrutineers.  Do the watch dogs
> watch each other too?  Or do they "watch out" for each other?
> And I'd be a lot more comfortable voting if I understood why a Watch Dog
> committee is necessary.  Why can't it just be done by the Secretariat?
> Especially now we have a paid employee.  Or do we?

The Secretariat sends and counts the ballots. The
watchdog committee members check that the votes are
counted correctly and the voting rules adopted by the
GA are followed. It's simply a check against human 
error and manipulation. (This is also the case when
there are uncertainties about membership in the voter
registry.)

> Or are we doing this because we don't trust the Names Council?  If so, that is
> a shocking indictment of their moral integrity.
>
> As I remember, they publish all the votes (anonymously) and they can never
> know who will check their own vote.  That should keep the vote honest.

True, but e.g. someone could add votes with ballots
which were never sent and received in reality. 

> So why should we need such a large group at all?

In order to perform their role, the watchdog group 
must contain people which are trusted by others
with different backgrounds. Even if you personally
don't trust watchdog A, you might find that
watchdog B is trustworthy and if he found any
irregularities in the voting process, would uncover 
them. So you need a sufficient number of watchdogs to 
gain such trust, but the number should be small to 
keep the individual votes secret.

Frankly, I wish the GA cared more about finding
adequate people for the Chair and Vice-Chair position
-- nominations start in just over a week!

Best regards,
/// Alexander
--
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