[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [council] Some Thoughts on the Elections Process






___________________________________________________________________________
____

 This message is intended for the individual or entity named above.  If you
are not the intended
 recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to
others; also please
 notify the sender by replying to this message, and then delete it from
your system.  Thank you.
___________________________________________________________________________
____

If I may throw in two cents worth of opinion, by far  the most important
thing the NC can do at the moment is to make sure that the DNSO, which was
the first SO recognized, is not the only SO not to elect its Directors in
time for them to be seated in LA..  There are important decisions to be
made in Los Angeles; it would be a shame if the PSO and ASO Directors take
their seats and have their say, but DNSO members were incapable of getting
their Directors elected in time to participate in those decisions.  IMHO,
the NC should be spending 100% of its time on this subject; everything else
can wait until after Los Angeles.  There is enough time to do this if the
NC puts its collective focus on this; if it does not, it will certainly
appear to be because of a lack of will, not time.


                                                                  
 (Embedded                                                        
 image moved   Dennis Jennings <Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie>           
 to file:      09/12/99 07:44 PM                                  
 pic23825.pcx)                                                    
                                                                  


Extension:

To:   "'Javier'" <javier@aui.es>
cc:   "'council@dnso.org'"<council@dnso.org> (bcc: Joe Sims/JonesDay)
Subject:  RE: [council] Some Thoughts on the Elections Process




Javier,

Unless we have an agreed process that is and will be seen to be fair and
workable, we should not be driven by the deadline requested by the ICANN
Board.  It is much more important to get this right and agreed than that
the DNSO has three Board members in a hurry.

The reputation of the Names Council is not very high (to say the least) -
and much of this arises because of the continuing demand that we rush to
get things done before we know what to do or how to do it.

Let's have a calm discussion on the voting process - and hopefully we can
agree on a sensible workable process (with expert advice on the voting
issues), and proceed rapidly to implement it - hopefully in time for the
October 15th Deadline.

Dennis

On Friday, September 10, 1999 8:16 PM, Javier [SMTP:javier@aui.es] 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
>

pic23825.pcx