ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga-full]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] Re: Membership criteria - compromise



----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
To: "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>;
<ga@dnso.org>; <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 8:48 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Membership criteria - compromise


> Elizabeth,
> That would be 26% of all those registered to vote? Could we first exclude
> all those bouncing ballots from "members" who have moved on, changed email
> address, but not actually bothered to unsubscribe? That would make quite a
> difference wouldn't it?

This is easily addressed by the sending of an invitation to get a ballot,
rathor than the ballot.  That way only people interested in any given matter
will vote on it.

Another possibility is that the qualifying process for a voting member could
be such that if those registerd voting members do not vote on a matter, that
is send in a ballot with a Yes/No or Abstention on it, that they are
automatically removed from the voting register.

>
> I think that Members should be asked to reconfirm their membership
annually,
> which would protect the integrity of the electoral register.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Elisabeth
> > Porteneuve
> > Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 2:45 PM
> > To: ga@dnso.org; jefsey@club-internet.fr
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Membership criteria - compromise
> >
> >
> >
> > Jefsey <jefsey@club-internet.fr> wrote:
> > >
> > > It would even permit very quick responses: a stuffing could
> > lead to a quick
> > > verification vote. A 95% poll supported by a 75% votes would
> > really mean
> > > the GA really supports something. While a 90% poll supported by a 45%
> > > vote  would mean hi-jacking attempt and kill the reputation of
> > the stuffers
> > > and the enthousiam of their supporters.
> > >
> >
> > Jefsey,
> >
> > Your numbers suppose that such a high participation happens
> > and is possible.
> >
> > I made a summary of participation in all 11 (12 soon) GA votes,
> > it is in http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/gavotesummary.html
> > (access from Administration Documents of the GA).
> >
> > On average we get 26%.
> >
> > Ballot and Date            Electorate Votes Participation
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> > b01  26 June 2000                 117   61  52.1%
> > b02  6-17 November 2000           252   56  22.2%
> > b03  16-23 March 2001             295   67  22.7%
> > b04  31 March - 7 April 2001      293  102  34.8%
> > b05  21-28 May 2001               305   91  29.8%
> > b06  24 Jun - 11 Jul 2001         326   81  24.8%
> > b07  5-25 Jul 2001                333   73  21.9%
> > b08  17-31 Aug 2001               440   89  20.2%
> > b09  22-29 Oct 2001               447  128  28.6%
> > b10  14 Dec 2001 - 11 Jan 2002    456  114  25.0%
> > b11  23 Nov 2001 - 14 Jan 2002    442  102  23.1%
> > b12  15-22 May 2002               586  NNN  NN.N%
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Elisabeth Porteneuve
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>