Re: [council] Some Thoughts on the Elections Process

[Raul Echeberria <raul@inia.org.uy>]

Javier:

Strangely enough I fully agree with you.


At 09:15 PM 10/09/1999 +0200, Javier wrote:
>Dennis,
>
>The process that you propose sounds very good in general (see comments 
>below), but cannot be applied now, as our time constraints are clear. If 
>the nomination period is to be of four weeks, we would need to start it on 
>September 17 (a week from today).
>
>We need a mechanisms that will bring Directors into office by October 15th.
>
>
>>Boundary Conditions:
>>
>>1  Nominations by the DNSO General Assembly.
>>2  The electorate is the members of the Names Council.
>>3  Three candidates to be elected.
>>4  Each successful candidate to have "over 50% of the affirmative votes
>>of the NC members".
>>6  "...no more than one-half (1/2) of the total number of Directors, in the
>>aggregate, serving at any given time pursuant to selection by the
>>Supporting Organisations shall be citizens of countries located in any
>>one Geographic Region."
>>
>>The electorate is the members of the Names Council
>>
>>This is clear.  However, it is also clearly the intent that the Names
>>Council members consult the various Constituencies to get input on
>>which candidates the Constituency favours.  This suggest that some
>>formal mechanism of consultation of the Constituencies is required - and
>>probably it will vary between Constituencies, given the disparate types
>>of organisation of the Constituencies.  The most likely mechanism that
>>will be and be seen to be transparent is a formal poll of the Constituency
>>members.
>
>The Names Council should not be involved on how the constituencies reach 
>their agreements. It is up to each one of them to see if they want to 
>decide on candidates or leave the choice to the Names Council.
>
>
>>4  Each successful candidate to have "over 50% of the affirmative votes
>>of the NC members".
>>
>>This Boundary Conditions is imprecise, since the meaning of "affirmative
>>votes" is not specified.  I presume that it means that to be elected a
>>candidate must reach a quota of 50% of the votes cast.  This of course
>>means that the voting must cope with the situation where no candidate
>>achieves this result on the first ballot, and successive rounds of
>>balloting are possible (with or without eliminations/standing down), or,
>>alternatively, that the voting mechanism allow for elimination and re-
>>distribution of votes.
>
>Having several votes per member (I have proposed three) will probably solve 
>this issue. I case one of the top three candidates does not reach the 50% 
>line. A single vote of the Names Council deciding if it sends the name to 
>the Board can be used (if it receives the support of 50% of the NC).
>
>We shoult try to avoid having to repeat elections because of this clause.
>
>
>>I do not know enough about any other mechanism to make any
>>judgement on its suitability to meet the necessary criteria.  I'm sure that
>>the Electoral Reform Society of the UK, who the ccTLD Constituency as
>>advisers, will have detailed information about all sort of elections
>>mechanisms.
>>
>>I presume that the vote will be by secret ballot.
>>
>>4  Geographical Diversity:  "...no more than one-half (1/2) of the total
>>number of Directors, in the aggregate, serving at any given time
>>pursuant to selection by the Supporting Organisations shall be citizens
>>of countries located in any one Geographic Region."
>>
>>The last of these Boundary Conditions is unfortunately imprecise and
>>does not lead to a precise constraint on the Directors elected by the
>>DNSO.  This means that whatever the results of the DNSO elections to
>>the ICANN Board, there exists the possibility that the results of the (set
>>of all) elections (by the SOs) will be rejected as not meeting this
>>condition, and new elections required.  However, since there is no
>>precise constraint on the elections, the process could continue
>>indefinitely without resolution - except by some arrangement between
>>the various sets of electors.
>
>Most constituencies have an election system that always yields three 
>candidates from different regions, such as the one that I have proposed for 
>this case. It does need a mechanism to support the 50% affirmative vote 
>rule, but it is only a couple more sentences.
>
>javier
>
>
>

Raul Echeberria
raul@inia.org.uy