Re: [ga] Watch Dog Committee

[k@widgital.com (Kristy McKee)]

At 06:07 AM 11/29/2001 +0100, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>Hello Patrick and fellow GA readers,
>
>Patrick Corliss wrote on 29.11.01, 13:46:35:
> > The members to the Watchdog Committee in 2002 election are:
> >         o Roberto Gaetano
> >         o Harald Alvestrand
> >         o Kent Crispin
> >         o Dany Vandromme
> >         o Alexander Svensson
> >         o Izumi Aizu
> >
> > Roberto, Harald, Kent, Dany, Alexander, and Izumi have been on this 
> committee
> > for a long time.  I am not sure whether any of them play another role 
> of some
> > sort in ICANN/DNSO operations.
>
>And I am not sure what "ICANN/DNSO operations" means --
>it sounds like undercover agent's work. :) Speaking for
>myself, I don't operate ICANN, and I don't think any
>of the other people on the list does.
>
> > As usual these decisions are made for us.  I am concerned that these 
> decisions
> > are made for and on our behalf by Philip Sheppard and Elizabeth Porteneuve
> > (who is acting under his instructions).  Of course, these processes must be
> > more partipative by the GA membership.
>
>This seems to be a misunderstanding. The watchdogs have
>not been selected by the NC nor by the Secretariat.
>It is up to the outgoing Chair to ensure that at least
>two election watchdogs are ready to check the ballots.
>
> > It is up to us, the voters, to determine who we want to review our votes.
> >
> > At the moment I am not sure WHO the DNSO Secreatariat is.  But I've 
> asked this
> > before without getting any answer.  I'm sending whoever a copy.  Can we 
> have a
> > reply, please?
> >
> > BTW I don't know why there should be so many scrutineers.  Do the watch 
> dogs
> > watch each other too?  Or do they "watch out" for each other?
> > And I'd be a lot more comfortable voting if I understood why a Watch Dog
> > committee is necessary.  Why can't it just be done by the Secretariat?
> > Especially now we have a paid employee.  Or do we?
>
>The Secretariat sends and counts the ballots. The
>watchdog committee members check that the votes are
>counted correctly and the voting rules adopted by the
>GA are followed. It's simply a check against human
>error and manipulation. (This is also the case when
>there are uncertainties about membership in the voter
>registry.)
>
> > Or are we doing this because we don't trust the Names Council?  If so, 
> that is
> > a shocking indictment of their moral integrity.
> >
> > As I remember, they publish all the votes (anonymously) and they can never
> > know who will check their own vote.  That should keep the vote honest.
>
>True, but e.g. someone could add votes with ballots
>which were never sent and received in reality.
>
> > So why should we need such a large group at all?
>
>In order to perform their role, the watchdog group
>must contain people which are trusted by others
>with different backgrounds. Even if you personally
>don't trust watchdog A, you might find that
>watchdog B is trustworthy and if he found any
>irregularities in the voting process, would uncover
>them. So you need a sufficient number of watchdogs to
>gain such trust, but the number should be small to
>keep the individual votes secret.
>
>Frankly, I wish the GA cared more about finding
>adequate people for the Chair and Vice-Chair position
>-- nominations start in just over a week!
>
>Best regards,
>/// Alexander
>--
>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


Alexander, or other WatchDog,

Please clarify the process for us:  two people from the watchdog committee 
re-record votes for each election to ensure votes are counted 
correctly.  By correctly you mean according to the voting rules?  And a 
check is performed against the message headers to ensure accuracy for a 
check against the voting roster?

Thank you,

:)

~k



--
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