Re: [registrars] ELECTION FOR ICANN BOARD MEMBERS - SEAT 14

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

Eric,

Not sure if I should be offended or not ;-)

The problem is that we have to make a decision about the result of these
votes. I will concened that a better, perhaps less simple, process needs to
be developed. But we have what we have today. I am simply stating that the
less we allow it to be manipulated, with good or bad motives, after the
vote begins, the better.

Tim


 -------- Original Message --------
   Subject: Re: [registrars] ELECTION FOR ICANN BOARD MEMBERS - SEAT 14
   From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
   Date: Sun, March 9, 2003 8:51 am
   To: tim@godaddy.com

   Tim,

   This is my last comment on this subject. Elections I have personal
   knowledge of, conducted under mature, well-known election laws, by
   experienced election workers, are not "simple". Campaigns managed by
   staff with a simple model of elections are not competitive when the
   margin is at or within the sampling error of the better available
   polling data.

   To move from the general to the practical, I can't assume that anyone
   who is attempting to influence an election process has no interest in
   its outcome. In my limited experience, "simple rules" have practical
   beneficiaries.

   Bill Rehnquist worked as a poll watcher for the GOP in Phoenix. He
   applied "simple rules" in some precincts in Phoenix, objectively,
   those having the higher percentages of Latino or non-White potential
   voters. [For the non-US RC interested, BR campaigned for Goldwater in
   '64, was appointed Assistant Attorney General under Nixon, and
   elevated to the Supreme Court, also under Nixon. This will partially
   illuminate why Florida's 2000 election was such "fun", BR's vote was
   obvious in advance.]

   You can either advocate "simplicity" because you are simple, or
   idealistic, which may come down to the same thing, or you can advocate
   "simplicity" because it is a form of partisan advocacy. If the former,
   that's life. If the latter, its technique. I respect technicians.
   Whether you are out to game this ballot, or game balloting, is
   immaterial to me.

   Personally, it seems to me that the only issues present in the
   momentary ballots are who wears what bits of brocade on the poop deck
   of the Good Ship Lollipop, not substantive issues affecting the
   business rules of the RC, and the businesses that agree to conduct
   business under those rules.

   The suggestion that the RC's "election law" is made better or worse by
   any criteria, by our conduct, seems specious to me, and obviously
   plain as the light of day to you. How much traction you get out of
   this position is TBD. I'm at a disadvantage, having different
   experience, and am unlikely to ever be convinced of the correctness of
   your claim on this specific topic.

   Eric