[registrars] Re: Ballot Results Explanation

["Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@psi-japan.com>]

At 08:13 16-02-2000 -0800, Louis Touton wrote:
>On the other hand, it would also appear inappropriate to simply "adjust"
>the results to count the late-received ballot.  Since that ballot was
>not received by the previously established deadline, counting that
>vote would not be according to regular procedures.

Dear Louis:

I disagree for two reasons.  1. The ballot was not received because of a 
technical problem, Michael had not had time to properly add William to the 
list of persons permitted to post to the list.  2. According to Andrew, the 
"Registrars Constituency Charter" requires a minimum of seven days for the 
election. (Please see attachment, below.)

Inasmuch as the ballot was received well within the seven days, the results 
should be certified.

Regards, BobC


>   A certification
>of "adjusted" results would not be appropriate because the election
>officer has no express authority to waive the deadline and the
>"adjusted"
>result would not have been according to a regularly conducted election.
>In these circumstances, the **usual** remedy is to rerun the election
>for
>the portion affected by the error.

Attachment:

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Robert F. Connelly <rconnell@psi-japan.com>
À : mclaughlin@pobox.com <mclaughlin@pobox.com>
Cc : registrar@registrar.icann.org <registrar@registrar.icann.org>
Date : lundi 31 mai 1999 13:09
Objet : Re: [registrar] FW: Names Council elections

 >At 10:08 31-05-99 +0200, Andrew McLaughlin wrote:
 >
 >>Hi all, whenever you get this mail.
 >>
 >>According to the Registrar Consituency Charter we will elect the three
DNSO
 >>Naems Council reps (as provided by ICANN bylaws) using a two weeks
election
 >>timeline, one for nominations and one for voting.
 >>