RE: [registrars] voting

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Actually, this provides better support to quorum requirements in the
bylaws than it does to the voting practices of the NC reps.



                       -rwr




"There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an
idiot."
- Steven Wright

Please review our ICANN Reform Proposal:
http://www.byte.org/heathrow
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org 
> [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 1:36 PM
> To: registrars@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [registrars] voting
> 
> 
> Exactly why the NC reps should not be "required" to vote one 
> or the other.
> 
> Tim
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@dnso.org [mailto:owner-registrars@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 9:31 PM
> To: 'registrars@dnso.org'
> Subject: [registrars] voting
> 
> 
> Just another comment on voting.
> 
> How many votes should there be before it is representative of 
> the constituency?
> 
> e.g if there are 100 paid members of the constituency, and 10 
> members vote on an issue. Is the result of such a vote still valid?
> 
> I have heard arguments in the past, that a particular vote (e.g 80% in
> favour) was potentially invalid because only a small number of members
> voted.   The problem is that a particular interested party 
> could heavily
> lobby a proportion of the voters to vote in a particular way, 
> which can skew the results unless there is a substantial 
> number of voters. If only 10 members are actively voting - it 
> is relatively easy to lobby each of them.
> 
> The difficulty is that although we may have many members, 
> only a small proportion actively participate in voting on issues.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce
>