Re: [ga] Letter to the Board on the At-Large Study

[Harald Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

I personally substantially agree with the viewpoints raised.
I do not know if it is possible to achieve them.

Two notes:

>4.  *The study should be conducted by open procedures. Meetings of the 
>group should be held with prior notice and be open to the public.*

Experience with a lot of groups suggests that the interplay of ideas is 
substantially harmed by the inability to raise an idea, have it found 
wanting, and dropping it, without having that idea used against you in the 
future.

I urge that the group be allowed to talk in private.

However, I also urge that any member of the group be allowed and encouraged 
to relate any opinion about the reasoning behind results from the group's 
deliberations in public.
If the group is representative of both ICANN supporters and critics, this 
should ensure that little can be hidden.

At 17:50 09/11/2000 -0500, Rob Courtney wrote:
>5.  *There should be open public access to all data and information about 
>the recent election.* One key task of the study is to assess the election 
>held last month for the first five At Large seats. The study should 
>evaluate what went right and what went wrong with the election, what 
>lessons can be learned, and what changes should be made for the future. In 
>doing this, to the extent consistent with maintaining the privacy of 
>voters, the study should review all data relevant to the election, 
>including computer records relating to the registration and verification 
>of memberships, and the process of voting itself.


I would stress that under no circumstances must the secrecy of the vote 
itself be compromised.
However, the study commission, or someone acting on their behalf, SHOULD 
have the ability to:

- track down some sample persons who voted, and verify their identity
- track down some sample persons who activated membership and did not
   vote, and ask why
- track down some sample persons who registered but did not activate,
   and ask why

At the moment, prevailing theory is that the "lost" categories are partly
because of technical problems, and partly because people lost interest;
it would be interesting to verify this theory.

             Harald




--
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