Re: [ga] Nomination Procedures - better copy (typos removed)

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

	Nii's proposal is a good one, but I think we couldn't possibly implement
it before our deadline to send procedures to the NC *tomorrow*.  (It also
suffers from the defect of loading still more work on poor Bret and
Theresa.)  There has in fact been some discussion on the NC list about what
sort of proposals would be acceptable to them.  A suggestion was made on
the NC list, and received significant support, that the NC would be
satisfied with an approach under which the GA sent over a list of five
names, along with endorsements.  See
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00094.html> and followup
posts.  As I've suggested before, I think it's worth trying to craft such a
proposal.  The biggest problem, as I see it, is the one Kent has focused
on: what do we do about fraudulent posts?

	Here's an early draft of a proposal I'd like to send to
ga-procedures@dnso.org sometime tomorrow.  It still needs a lot of work, I
think, so I'd appreciate comments.

1. We announce a rule that only natural persons can vote in this process,
and that no person can vote more than once.  The NC appoints a small
"poll-watching committee" from within the GA.

2. Nov 26 - Dec 2: any member of the GA can propose the name of one or more
potential candidates for the office of GA chair.  Any person whose name has
been proposed has through Dec 3 to accept the nomination, and to file a
statement explaining how he or she will carry out the job of chair, and
setting out his or her views as to the GA's relationship with the NC and
the constituencies, and its role in the DNSO.  Any person who does not
accept the nomination, and file the statement, by that deadline can't be
considered.

3. Dec 3-Dec. 10:  each member of the GA can cast a vote for up to five
folks on the list of potential candidates.

4. The poll-watching committee counts the votes, and assembles a list of
the top 5 vote-getters.  It also examines the votes cast, and makes a
judgment whether there is a substantial possibility that any person on that
list made it on only because of fraudulent votes (that is, votes cast by
somebody participating multiple times under different names).  If so, they
add additional names to the list (starting with the person who received the
sixth-largest number of votes, and so on) until it appears that the
expanded list includes each of the five people who would have received the
most votes absent fraudulent voting.  They then send the expanded list to
the NC, and send a statement to the NC and the GA explaining their
conclusions and the bases for their actions.

//The problem here is that the evidence available to the poll-watching
committee may not always allow them to draw firm conclusions as to whether
votes are fraudulent.  On the other hand, once the actual votes are cast,
it may turn out that there's no practical problem -- for example, it might
happen that five candidates get sufficient landslide support from obviously
legit votes that any fraudulent voting couldn't have affected their
standing.  My goal in setting up the poll-watching committee is to allow
enough fudge to deal adequately with the problem *if* it arises.  The
problem is a short-term one, since once the ICANN membership is established
it can provide a verification mechanism.  I'm not thrilled with designating
the NC as the folks to appoint the poll-watching committee, but I can't
think of any other way to do it.//

5. The NC selects a chair from the expanded list.


	Suggestions?

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com


At 03:17 PM 11/18/99 -0000, Dr. Nii N. Quaynor wrote:
>Sorry for repeat.
>----------------------
>Members,
>
>I have followed the constructive discussions on the nominations procedures
>with keen interest. I have also noted the requests for me to provide some
>coordination in this exercise. I will love to do that but the facts below
>prevent me from having such a responsibility:
>
>1. My role as GA Chair terminated at the end of the LA conference since my
>appointment was specifically to chair the LA meeting. Hence, I will be
>out-of-order if I assumed such a role.
>
>2. The call for nomination procedure also appear to suggest that the
>proposals come from members of GA, not from the GA as an organized body.
>
>3. WG-D was asked to study the issue of an organized GA versus non-organized
>GA at LA meeting.
>
>Under the circumstances, I could not assume any formal role but suggest the
>following:
>
>1. we sanitize the 7 or so proposals identified in the GA, by forming a
>drafting team to assist the proponents detail the proposals. the drafting
>team includes the authors, wd-g chairman and one or two enthousiasts.
>
>2. the authors/proponents submit their final detailed proposals themselves
>to: ga-procedures@dnso.org as requested.
>
>3. WG-D Chairman provide some analysis of the proposed procedures to both
>the ga@dnso.org and ga-procedures@dnso.org The term of the Chairman of WG-D
>is active and is tasked with recommending procedures and policies. A report
>from the WG-D Chairman of these procedures to NC is in order and would be
>well received.
>
>Such an approach ensures we are within the scope of the bylaws and also
>follow the intent of the guidelines of the NC call for nominations
>procedures.
>
>Best Regards,
>Nii
>
>
>
>
>