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

[R.Gaetano@iaea.org]

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> 
> 	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*.

I agree.
As I am convinced that the time scale will be important if we want to have a
GA Chair in this millennium ;>).

The proposal(s) should be in by today, and I don't think that it will do any
good to ask the NC for delaying the deadline.

> <snip>
> ....  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.

Indeed.
As you have put it already, the question was between three or five names,
anything below three being unacceptable, and anything over five exaggerated.
I was personally for three, but I'll take it back, and play it safe with
five.

> <snip>
> ...  The biggest problem, as I see it, is the one Kent 
> has focused
> on: what do we do about fraudulent posts?
> 

There's another point we need to address before chasing fraudolent
"electors": who is qualified to be an elector?
The key points are:
1. defining which lists are the basis for identification
2. freezing the list(s) contents

As for 1., I think it should be limited to GA-list + DNSO-announce.
The main task for the GA chair, as I see it, is to coordinate the activities
in the GA list, he/she will not have any power and/or responsibility in
relationship with WGs and Constituencies, and therefore I don't see the need
to make things more complicated including these lists as well.

As for 2., I think that it is essential that the freezing date be *soon*,
ideally today, at the deadline for submission of proposals. Ideally, also,
the content of the list should be published by DNSO-Admin (concerns for
privacy?).

> 	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.
> 

This will extend the deadline for election, but I agree, as I think it is
essential that the set of candidates be known before submission of
nominations.

> 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).

Small disagreement.

The polling committee can start looking for fishy situations already when
the lists are frozen. There will be nothing wrong in trying to start some
verifications even before the poll starts.

I am here assuming that if there are people willing to stack the deck with
fake names/identities, it will be a small nmber of individuals, and that the
vast majority would like a democratic confrontation.
If this is not the reality in the GA, we may as well all go home and take
care of other businesses, becvause the situation will be hopeless.

As a consequence, I am assuming that the majority would agree on some
"auditing" process (see, as a reference, the "auditing" performed in the
NCDNHC before acceptance of membership).

 
>  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.
> 

I tend to disagree with this.
I personally trust the NC, and therefore the "polling committee", but this
may not be a consensus in the GA.
There are people who would like to have democratic elections, and therefore
are against the fake votes, but who would not give the NC "additional power"
to extend the number of nominees in a way that may be felt as "arbitrary".

I would like to be sure that there will be the need for such "exceptional"
measure, like, for instance, if the DNSO-Admin told us that the GA-list or
DNSO-announce has grown suspiciously in the last couple of weeks.
This also is another reason for freezing the contents of the list (I would
even endorse a "frozen date" in the past, for this matter).

I hope it helps.

Regards
Roberto