Re: [registrars] ELECTION FOR ICANN BOARD MEMBERS - SEAT 14

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>]

Eric,

See my recent post. The deadline to register in these RC votes was set by
our ExComm. Given the fiasco of our first attempt to elect the NomComm rep,
I would have thought it should be pretty clear what was intended.

Even in the examples you refer to below, decisions on challenges,
exceptions, etc. are based on existing rules and law. If not, then those
processes are just as flawed as ours appears to be.

Tim

 -------- Original Message --------
   Subject: Re: [registrars] ELECTION FOR ICANN BOARD MEMBERS - SEAT 14
   From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
   Date: Sun, March 9, 2003 6:59 am
   To: tim@godaddy.com

   Tim,

   Same day as != Some weeks prior to.

   I'll just write to personal experience as a party poll watcher,
   precinct captain, GOTV coordinator, and candidate.

   Some ballots are challenged post poll-closure, some prior-to
   poll-closure. Some non-ballots are challenged post poll-closure, some
   prior-to poll-closure.

   In my experience, parties have call centers staffed by election law
   prepared lawyers, and challenge both non-ballots (registration
   declined errors) and ballots (registration accepted errors, invalid
   ballots, adverse circumstances, etc.)

   In addition there are absentee ballots, submitted by individuals,
   municipal officials (e.g., retirement home balloting), and party
   workers.

   I don't play a lawyer on the net, but I don't think that even the
   principle of ordering (registration before balloting) is without
   exception. Mind, the actual "vote" isn't legally closed until the
   Secretary of State certifies the election results, some days, even
   weeks, after the polling places closed.

   In theory, practice == theory. In practice, practice != theory.

   Eric