RE: [council] e-mail votes v3
Here are my inputs to this "Vote" discussion.
We all saw the problems with the last "work around" with e-mail, where
Tony's vote was not even received.
I would prefer that all NC votes be taken by voice. If a NC member can
not be present during a vote, then we could make aq specific arrangement
for that "missing member's vote". This could be a telephone call to the
DNSO secretariat, which is recorder, audio, and followed up with an
e-mail by the council member.
Otherwise- if and when there are electronic votes, they need to use the
controlled ballot system such as we use for voting for ICANN board.
Peter de Blanc
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf
Of Elisabeth Porteneuve
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 2:24 PM
To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: [council] e-mail votes v3
> The first point probably provides a sufficient safety valve. What is
> the difference between a GA vote under the auspices of the DNSO
> Secretariate v. a self-organized GA vote?
> Harold Feld
Speaking as the one who has been conducting a number of votes for the
DNSO, I will limit my comment to describe you what it really is.
To have a vote, one needs:
1. a well defined electorate
2. a time to start and to end, precisely respected
3. a voting procedures to determine when a vote is valid
(such as conditions on minimal participation)
and how to calculate it (simple majority, or single trasferable
vote, or anything else which is mathematicaly defined)
4. Watchdog Committe able to help solve problems, and to recalculate
results - to avoid a single point of failure
5. public record in which each and every voting person may
see his ballot, and still remain secret - to have who voted
for whom undisclosed
(as someone recently pointed out: when elected people vote
their vote must be completely disclosed; when an assembly vote
each voter have rights to a secret vote)
and a committed, reliable person conducting the vote.
When the Secretariat is conducting a vote, all the above
1. the electorate list is used - by rule the email addresses
on the GA electorate list are kept undisclosed;
each ballot get a persoalized key, valid for one vote;
the received ballots are checked against posted ones
2. the time is respected
3. the voting procedure, which have been developped by
the GA itself, is respected
4. the GA Watchdog committee receive automatically replicated
and is sollicited in case of claims
5. the secret is preserved, and at the same time the whole
public record provided; each vote have appropriate web pages
providing for the full context
Please add that we are in the international environnment, which oblige
people to look on reference time in UTC and to deduce their local time.
They get lost sometimes. That emails get bounced - for zillion reasons,
permanent. That people may delete or lose their ballot,
and ask you one hour before the dealine to regenerate it (in some votes
the last 8 hours before the deadline are just rush hours). That some
will post in HTML format, sometimes even without knowing it (thanks to
some well known volume consuming softwares)
not to mention that some will choose various international character
sets and personalized signatures, and then their
ballot will arrive as encoded attachement. Etc.
In one sentence - a vote by nature is a complex and time consuming. An
electronic vote too.
> Philip Sheppard wrote:
> > Harold, before we add in a possible override for the NC with respect
> > to a GA vote we need to understand what this paragraph intends.
> > 1. The GA can vote whenever it wants, however it wants at any time
> > if
> > it organises itself to do so. The GA does not need the NC's
> > 2. If however the GA has a vote of sufficient importance that it
> > wants
> > to use the DNSO secretariat as returning officer and the DNSO
> > for the vote, then this rule requires it to check with the elected
> > chair of those who pay for those resources. The rule says if its
> > in the budget, the answer is expected to be yes.
> > 3. In the rare case that it is outside of the budget (eg the 50th
> > vote
> > the GA has asked for this year!!) the answer may be different. But
> > the answer is No, and the GA chair thinks that unreasonable, the GA
> > chair can today choose to lobby any NC member or indeed propose it
> > himself as an NC agenda item. If discussed then a simple majority of
> > the NC could authorise the vote.
> > I hope that this is sufficient flexibility.
> > Philip