[registrars] RE: ballot games

[Rick Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>]

Mike,

I am concerned about the integrity of the process, and that we have
changed the process and that WE (you and I) need to be careful of how
vested we are in the nomination of these canadates. Since both you and I
have access to the vote results during the vote we can see who is voting
for whom and who has changed their vote.

We agreed to extend the ballot for 24 hours because of weather
conditions though I doubt weather conditions played any role in the 6
new registrars recent signup.

If you are actively campaigning for one canadate while you have access to
privileged information, your actions can create the appearance of a game.

Since you have stated that you wish to be on the GNSO board [1] you have
an interest in who is on the nomination committee.

you are walking a fine line campaigning for someone who may potentially
nominate you for a board seat. I also feel deceived because at the excom
meeting you and ken advocated that we needed to extend the vote because of
weather conditions -- It was I that was being "snowed" not DC.

using inside information or your position for political or personal gain
is wrong and I hope that is not what is going on here.


-rick


[1] http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc02/msg00371.html

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Michael D. Palage wrote:

> Rick:
>
> I am a little confused. I have been actively calling registrars telling them
> to get out and vote, while simulateously advocating Henning who I nominated.
> In fact, TUCOWS employees have been doing the same and even asking
> registrars to change their vote. Having registrars cast a vote is a good
> thing. Having registrars become active in the constituency by paying dues is
> a good thing. Since the constituency was formed we have always allowed a
> registrar to vote provided that they met the qualifications. If they said
> payment was forth coming we would wait. If the payment came their vote
> counted. Check the archieves, I am not making it up.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 4:05 PM
> > To: Registrars Executive Committee
> > Cc: Registrars List
> > Subject: ballot games
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I have received numerous requests to add registrars to the boardrooms.org
> > site today, and one fax with a vote on it.
> >
> > I feel we are very near to compromising the integrity of the executive
> > committee.
> >
> >   a) in the future we should only allow those to vote who are eligible at
> >      the time of the ballot issuance.
> >
> >   b) we shouldn't allow new processes to be initiated during a ballot
> >
> >   c) we should only allow those members in good standing to participate.
> >      we have several members who are in limbo because various payment
> >      were not received.
> >
> >   d) we should not extend the ballot period with out a clear justification
> >      and documentation for such. the request for extention yesterday
> >      which I originally agreed with is just one issue that makes me
> >      question the motivation.
> >
> > All of the above recommendations allow for a more predictable ballot
> > process with a greater level of integrity that we are currently working
> > under.
> >
> > In short I'm not sure of the gaming being played here, or if there is even
> > a game being played; but I am VERY uneasy with the undocumented process
> > surrounding this ballot and if the executive committee is working in the
> > best of the constituency any more.
> >
> >
> > -rick
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>