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

RE: [council] Convention-Style Voting adapted to the DNSO conditions



Elisabeth, NC Colleagues,

A strong objection, I'm afraid.  Sorry.

This variation of the convention style election process does not guarantee 
closure and is very confusing.  Could we please make it simpler and much 
closer to the process recommended by Andrew.  In addition, it must 
guarantee a GD outcome.

I suggest the process (Andrew's) as follows:

First Election to elect the Three Year ICANN Board member.

First round:  All NC's vote - 3 votes - three candidates must be voted for. 
 If any candidate has 10 votes or more, that candidate is elected.  If not, 
the candidates with zero votes are eliminated.
** Period of discussion within NC (I mean 30 - 60 minutes - not 30 - 60 
days)
Second round:  All NCs vote - 3 votes - three candidates voted for.  If any 
candidate has more that 10 votes, that candidate elected.  If not 
candidates with 1 vote are eliminated.

Additional rounds -  until a candidate get more that 10 votes.

Result announced.  All other candidates who are citizens of the region from 
which the fist elected board member comes are eliminated.

*** Period of consultation with Constituencies - perhaps 24 hours.

Second Election to elect the Two Year ICANN Board member.

First round:  All NCs vote - etc.

Result announced.  All other candidates from the region now represented are 
eliminated.

Third Election to elect for the One Year ICANN Board member.

First round:  As above.- etc. etc.

Result announced.  End of election.


Now, taking some of Amadeu's inputs on multiple votes, I think a variation 
on the above process that would speed up the election, and allow an element 
of preferential voting, would be desireable.  It could be as follows (I 
just show the First Round process below - the rest follows the structure 
above).

First Round:  All NCs vote:  6 votes - must be used as follows - three 
votes for the first preference candidate, 2 votes for the second 
preference, 1 vote for the third preference.  If any candidate has 30 votes 
or more - elected.  If not, those with less that three votes eliminated.
** period of consultation.... etc.

This variation would be better in my view.

The timescales proposed in the original message seem OK to me.

Dennis

On Friday, September 24, 1999 9:11 PM, Elisabeth Porteneuve 
[SMTP:Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr] wrote:
> All,
>
> I tried to put together Andrew proposal with Amadeu input,
> I am not sure I took into account Javier's very important
> request for feasability, however it takes into account all
> NC concerns.
>
> Without major objection from your side during the next 36 hours,
> it will be considered adopted and published Sunday morning CET
> on the dnso.org website.
>
> Elisabeth
> --
>
> Convention-Style Voting adapted to the DNSO conditions.
>
> 1. Use of basic rules. The secretariat will keep votes secret
>    untill the end of election period, and at the end make all
>    records public.
> 2. According to the current nominations, it is assumed that
>    the initial list of nominees will have candidates from all
>    5 regions.
> 3. First round via email, to reduce the initial list of nominees
>    into N1. Each member of the NC cast 3 votes.
> 4. Second round via email, to reduce the reduced list into the
>    no more than N2. Each member of the NC cast 2 votes.
> 5. Third round via email, to reduce the reduced list into the
>    no more than N3. Each member of the NC cast 1 vote.
> 6. Subsequent rounds via teleconference plus email, election of 3.
> 7. In case of a tie the special vote will be held
>    during the final NC teleconference.
>
> In the worst scenario, step 3(c), the NC will never meet the
> GD, and shall probably dissolve.
>
> In the bad scenario, votes equally distributed to different
> candidates, N1=18, and then N2 may be set to 10,
> and N3 set to 6.
> In the expected scenario, N1=10, and then N2 may be set to 7/8,
> and N3 to 5/6.
>
> The proposed system require each member of the NC to be available
> for vote during all 7 days, Oct 9 to Oct 16.
> The first three rounds are asynchronous (you vote when you like,
> provided it is within the time window), the last one is synchronous
> (during NC telecon on Saturday Oct 16).
>
> Elections will take place during 7 days, starting
> Saturday October 9, 18:00 CET, ending Saturday October 16, 18:00 CET.
> Unless the worst case happen, step 3(c), the elections will end
> on time.
>
> First round via email.
>       Begins: Saturday October 9, 18:00 CET
>       Ends:   Monday October 11, 18:00 CET
> Votes will be sent to an address specially set up by the DNSO
> secretariat. The results will be given within two hours after
> the close of the first round.
> First round, 19 voting NC members, 3 votes each, 57 total.
> The initial number of nominees is unknown, but is assumed
> to be as high as 20 or more.
> Rules applied in the first round:
> 1. Verification of valid votes.
>    Each member of the NC shall cast 3 votes, for 3 different
>    candidates.
> 2. Verification if somebody get 10 affirmative votes.
>    If a nominee receives more than 10 affirmative votes from
>    the NC he is declared elected, and all orger candidates from
>    his geographic region are eliminated. The first candidate
>    elected with 10 affirmative votes get the mandate of 3 years,
>    the second of 2 years, and the third of 1 year.
> 3. Dropped candidates and GD rule:
>    a. Candidates with zero, one or two votes are eliminated.
>    b. The check on the GD (geographic diversity) is done. If
>       after step (a) there is no GD, i.e. less than 3 regions
>       represented, all candidates from missing regions who received
>       2 votes (or 1 vote if none with 2 votes) are added back
>       to the list of nominees.
>    c. (worst scenario) If the GD of nominees cannot be
>       achieved in step (b), the first round is repeted but
>       no more than 2 times. If no succes achieved, then
>       the NC shall dissolve.
>       If necessary, the first round repeted first time will be
>       Monday Oct 11, 21:00 CET to Wednesday Oct 13, 18:00 CET.
>       If necessary, the first round repeted second time will be
>       Wednesday Oct 13, 21:00 CET to Friday Oct 15, 18:00 CET.
>       In such a situation all subsequent rounds will be delayed.
>
> If the first round votes are equally distributed (each constituency
> votes in block for 3 different candidates), we may end with
> 18 nominees selected, which will be the worst possible. It is
> expected we will have much less.
>
> Second round via email.
>       Begins: Monday October 11, 21:00 CET
>       Ends:   Wednesday October 13, 18:00 CET
> Votes will be sent to an address specially set up by the DNSO
> secretariat. The results will be given within two hours after
> the close of the second round.
> Second round, 19 voting NC members, 2 votes each, 38 total.
> In the worst scenario the number of nominees is expected to be 10 to 18.
> Rules applied in the second round:
> 1. Verification of valid votes.
>    Each member of the NC shall cast 2 votes, for 2 different
>    candidates.
> 2. Verification if somebody get 10 affirmative votes.
>    If a nominee receives more than 10 affirmative votes from
>    the NC he is declared elected, and all orger candidates from
>    his geographic region are eliminated. The first candidate
>    elected with 10 affirmative votes get the mandate of 3 years,
>    the second of 2 years, and the third of 1 year.
> 3. Dropped candidates and GD rule:
>    Loop A, repeted without vote until the number of remining
>    candidates is superior to N2:
>    a. Candidates with the lowest number of votes are eliminated.
>    b. The check on the GD (geographic diversity) is done. If
>       after step (a) there is no GD, i.e. less than 3 regions
>       represented, all candidates from missing regions who received
>       the lowest vote are added back to the list of nominees,
>       and their vote increased by one (this additional points will
>       not count for the affirmative votes, but only to keep GD).
>    End of Loop A.
>
> Third round via email.
>       Begins: Wednesday October 13, 21:00 CET
>       Ends:   Friday, October 15, 18:00 CET
> Votes will be sent to an address specially set up by the DNSO
> secretariat. The results will be given within two hours after
> the close of the second round.
> Third round, 19 voting NC members, 1 votes each, 19 total.
> In the worst scenario the number of nominees will be no greater than 10.
> Rules applied in the third round:
> 1. Verification of valid votes.
>    Each member of the NC shall cast 1 vote.
> 2. Verification if somebody get 10 affirmative votes.
>    If a nominee receives more than 10 affirmative votes from
>    the NC he is declared elected, and all orger candidates from
>    his geographic region are eliminated. The first candidate
>    elected with 10 affirmative votes get the mandate of 3 years,
>    the second of 2 years, and the third of 1 year.
> 3. Dropped candidates and GD rule:
>    Loop A, repeted without vote until the number of remining
>    candidates is superior to N3:
>    a. Candidates with the lowest number of votes are eliminated.
>    b. The check on the GD (geographic diversity) is done. If
>       after step (a) there is no GD, i.e. less than 3 regions
>       represented, all candidates from missing regions who received
>       the lowest vote are added back to the list of nominees,
>       and their vote increased by one (this additional points will
>       not count for the affirmative votes, but only to keep GD).
>    End of Loop A.
>
> Final rounds via telecon+email.
>       Begins: Saturday October 16, 15:00 CET
>       Ends:   Saturday, October 16, 18:00 CET
> Votes will be sent to an address specially set up by the DNSO
> secretariat. The results will be given within minutes.
> Final rounds, 19 voting NC members, 1 votes each, 19 total.
> Dropped candidates and GD rule:
>    a. Candidates with the lowest number of votes are eliminated.
>    b. The check on the GD (geographic diversity) is done. If
>       after step (a) there is no GD, i.e. less than 3 regions
>       represented, the round is repeted.
>
> --
> |From: "Andrew McLaughlin" <mclaughlin@pobox.com>
> |To: <council@dnso.org>
> |Cc: "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
> |Subject: [council] Rules for Convention-Style Voting
> |Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 12:16:28 -0400
> |Message-ID: <006d01bf05de$fd69a120$74152581@omnibook>
> |
> |To the Names Council:
> |
> |As promised, here is a rough outline of the rules that would govern a
> |convention-style voting procedure.
> |
> |
> |I.  BASIC RULES
> |
> |     1.  The list of Director nominees is presented to the NC.
> |     2.  Each NC member votes for one nominee.
> |     3.  The nominees are ranked by the number of votes received, and 
the NC
> |is informed of the result.
> |     4.  The lowest vote-getting nominee is eliminated from the list. 
 [For
> |the first round, all nominees receiving zero votes *and* the lowest
> |vote-getting nominee are eliminated from the list.]
> |     5.  The procedure is repeated with the new (reduced) list.
> |     6.  A winner is declared when a nominee receives 10 or more of the 
NC's
> |19 votes.
> |
> |The first seat to be filled will be the 3-year seat;  then the 2-year 
seat;
> |then the 1-year seat.
> |
> |In order to reduce the number of rounds of voting, the NC might 
eliminate
> |the *two* lowest vote-getting nominees after each round (until such time 
as
> |three nominees remain, at which point the *one* lowest vote-getting 
nominee
> |is eliminated).
> |
> |
> |II.  VARIATIONS BY VOTING MEDIUM
> |
> |
> |BY TELEPHONE
> |
> |To conduct a convention-style election by phone:
> |
> |     - the secretariat emails a ballot (list of nominees) to the NC 
members
> |for reference;
> |     - the secretariat of the NC calls the roll for each round (rotating 
the
> |list so that NC members are called in a different, random sequence for 
each
> |round)
> |     - each NC member states his/her vote when called;
> |     - the secretariat tallies and announces the results;
> |     - the secretariat determines and announces which name(s) to 
eliminate;
> |     - the process is repeated until one nominee gets 10 or more votes.
> |
> |Under this scenario, the NC members will be aware of each others' votes.
> |The call could, but need not, be webcast.
> |
> |One option would be to conduct the votes for the three Director seats on
> |three different days, to break a single, long teleconference into 
smaller
> |sessions and to allow the NC members to discuss, reflect and consult 
between
> |the teleconferences.  The teleconferences could be scheduled on three
> |consecutive days, or on a Monday, Wednesday, Friday sequence.
> |
> |
> |BY EMAIL
> |
> |To conduct a convention-style election by email:
> |
> |     - the secretariat emails a ballot to each NC member, along with a
> |deadline for the ballot to be received;
> |     - each NC member emails his/her vote back to the secretariat;
> |     - the secretariat tallies the votes and prepares a new (reduced) 
list
> |of nominees;
> |     - emails the results and the new ballot to the NC, with the 
deadline
> |for the next ballot to be received.
> |
> |The disadvantage of this method is that it will be time-consuming and at
> |least some NC members will likely miss the deadline for at least some 
rounds
> |of voting.  At least 24 hours will be required for each round, unless 
the NC
> |members agree in advance to check their email (for example) every 8 
hours
> |over the course of a 3-day period.
> |
> |
> |BY TELEPHONE AND EMAIL
> |
> |To conduct a convention-style election by telephone and email, the NC 
uses
> |the rules for a telephone election (above), but NC members send their 
votes
> |to the DNSO secretariat in real time by email.  This allows for secret
> |voting, but may actually lengthen the teleconference due to (i) the
> |unreliability of email transmission, and (ii) the time required for the
> |secretariat to read the emails and tally the votes.
> |
> |
> |BY ONLINE VOTING INTERFACE
> |
> |Don mentioned the possibility of a specially designed online voting
> |interface.  Perhaps he could post some details.
> |
> |
> |
> |[The above is a rough outline.  I'll be happy to elaborate or modify 
based
> |on comments from the NC.]
> |
> |
> |--Andrew
>