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

["matt hooker" <matthooker@hotmail.com>]

11/19/99

In response to Jon's proposal, cited below,:

I strongly feel that each "natural person" (perhaps a copy of some ID card 
from each person must be sent and verified by those who count the votes?) 
should only be allowed 1 vote. This is representative govt. Giving more than 
1 vote to aa member, only increases the chance that a small faction among 
the group will be over-represented in the results.

Other than that, and this is a MAJOR problem, i would accept the proposal. 
However I canot accept it as is.

Matt Hooker
Webmaster@Net-Speed.com
matthooker@hotmail.com


----Original Message Follows----
From: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Subject: Re: [ga] Nomination Procedures - better copy (typos removed)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 22:56:47 -0500

	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



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com