[ga] Analysis of This Week's Votes
Title: Help I found it interesting to carry out an analysis of this week's votes. I was
curious to see how people had voted. Had one block of people all voted for
Motion 1 (the re-bid) and another even bigger block of people voted for Motion 2
(softer approach)?
No!
It appears that a large majority were so much opposed to what ICANN are
doing, that they were prepared to vote in favour of BOTH motions (the more
extreme one AND the softer one).
Indeed, it turned out that only 38 out of the 164 voters who backed Motion
2 (soft option) did not also vote in favour of Motion 2. Put another way 126 out
of 164 voters who backed Motion 2 also wanted to go further and called for a
re-bid by voting for Motion 1 as well.
As a percentage, this means that only 17% of all those who voted,
voted for Motion 2 alone.
77% of the Motion 2 voters also wanted to go further and call for a re-bid,
and voted for Motion 1 as well.
Here are the actual voting patterns (I start at the "Defend ICANN" extreme
and end at the "Anti ICANN" extreme):
VOTING PATTERNS
Against Both Motions: 25 people
Against Motion 1 and abstained on Motion 2: 2 people
Voted Just for Motion 2: 1 person
Voted for Motion 2 and against Motion 1: 25 people
Voted for Motion 2 and abstained on Motion 1: 12 people
Abstained in both votes: 3 people
Voted for Motion 2 but also wanted to go further and Voted for Motion 1 as
well: 126 people
Voted for Motion 1 and abstained on Motion 2: 14 people
Voted for Motion 1 and against Motion 2: 8 people
Voted Just for Motion 1: 2 people
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
What is absolutely obvious is that the majority of people wanted the more
extreme action of a Re-Bid, and that this was the most popular motion because
77% of Motion 2's voters ALSO wanted to go further and have the Re-Bid
too.
There is absolutely no evidence that if people ALREADY want a Re-Bid, they
are implying they want a soft approach to ICANN first. That would be a perverse
interpretation, when they could have abstained on 1, voted against it, or not
voted at all on it. Clearly it is more obvious to interpret those who voted for
both as carrying out a "Protest" vote, basically saying, we'll support ANY
action if it will clear out the status quo... ideally a re-bid, but if not, then
any other method that will bring about change.
This is pretty obviously the outcome of last week's vote.
If you really want to know the truth, run the vote again, and ask people to
vote on WHICH motion they prefer (if any).
It's as simple as that.
But I don't suppose we'd get a further vote.
I have to say it was profoundly unhelpful to introduce a second motion at a
later stage, and run a vote on it at the same time. It did nothing for clarity,
and is typical of the opaque and wilful evasion of popular will that ICANN seems
to carry out all the time.
I'm sick of it.
So are the voters of the GA.
Analysis of these voters shows that to be so, and makes it clear that those
who took part in the vote want a Re-Bid to clear out this house of rogues and
rascals.
Richard Henderson
PS: Will Dan Halloran please answer my 14 questions! They are serious
questions, and urgent questions, and I've now waited 15 days for even an
acknowledgement of receipt. What a way to run a world resource! Opaque evasion,
Dan! No sign of openness at all.
|