RE: [registrars] RE: ballot games

[Nikolaj Nyholm <nikolajn@ascio.com>]

Mike,

This attack on Rick is plainly childish and does not serve you well.

It is very clear - you crossed an ethical and moral line the moment you, as
constituency chair, started lobbying for a particular candidate. 
You further compromised your standing by suggesting an extension of the
voting period.


Regards,
Nikolaj


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com] 
> Sent: 18. februar 2003 23:20
> To: Rick Wesson
> Cc: Registrars Executive Committee; Registrars List
> Subject: [registrars] RE: ballot games
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> Rick,
> 
> My backing Henning has NOTHING to do with me seeking a ICANN 
> Board seat. If
> you would take the time to read the by-laws instead of 
> self-promoting your
> fraud-it services during registrar constituency meeting you 
> would see that
> Henning/Elliot will be selection Board seats 1-8, I hopefully will be
> seeking a Board seat 13-14. So you are wrong once again.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Mike
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rick Wesson [mailto:wessorh@ar.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 5:11 PM
> > To: Michael D. Palage
> > Cc: Registrars Executive Committee; Registrars List
> > Subject: RE: ballot games
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>