Re: [ga] Time line for a vote; procedures.

["James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>]

I had not studied the specifics of the proceedure closely, and the system
set out by Jonathan Weinberg makes the most sense.  These are not binding
measures to begin with, and so having a record of what people support or
oppose is useful, by itself.  Also, one can imagine that a person could be
in favor of more than one motion that deals with similiar topics.   For
example, I could be in favor if a rebid, but also in favor of some specific
recommendations to the Committee on Reform.  Also, people will vote in favor
of (or opposed to) the rebid issue,  for differnent reasons.

Also, it is my understanding that to register to vote in the GA, you go
here.
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html

It appears as though many of the active GA posters are not now on the
official voting registry....Probably because the GA has only taken about 2
votes on matters of substance since it was created, and many persons have
not taken the time to learn how to register.

Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Weinberg" <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
To: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Time line for a vote; procedures.


> On Sat, 4 May 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > I would suggest that the ballot should be opened for several possible
> > resolutions on the topic of reform and a possible re-bid of ICANN
> > functions, plus the option not to accept any of the resolutions.  For
> > the evaluation of the vote, there are two possibilities (which only
> > differ if there is more than one resolution on the table):  (1) one vote
> > per member; a resolution which has more than 50% of the votes is
> > accepted [note that there can be at most one such resolution], (2)
> > preferential voting like what we are using for person elections, with
> > the top resolution being deemed to be accepted.  (Please comment.)
>
> Neither of these, I'd suggest.  The problem with (1) is that if
> two or more of the resolutions on the ballot are essentially similar, they
> may split the vote so that neither gets a majority, even though a
> substantial majority of the body in fact favors at least one of them.
> The problem with (2) is that the IRV system we use for candidate elections
> is designed with the goal of producing a winner in every election.
> That's not good for this sort of issue poll, since it may be we are so
> fragmented that there is *no* position that a majority supports -- in that
> case, there should be no winner.  My suggestion:  Allow members to vote
> yes/no on *each* resolution, and then see if any of the resolutions
> capture a substantial majority of those voting.
>
> Jon
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>


--
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