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

Re: [registrars] Elections and ICANN & NSI Contract

Michael D. Palage wrote:

> Point of Clarification:
> The following excerpt was taken from the minutes of the 6-8-99 Registrar
> teleconference:
> Nominations/elections - ......  There was a discussion on how the Names
> Council representatives would be elected as it is was agreed that candidates
> would be categorized into geographic regions and each representative would
> be allowed to cast one vote per geographic region.  There was an objection
> by the Melbourne IT representative that the representative be allowed to
> cast their votes for the best candidate regardless of geographical
> limitations. ...


I also ex`ressed the view that memers are to vote for their preferred
candadates, irrespective of their residence and the geographical they belong
to. Ithought I heard at least Paul Stahura agreeing.

Those lected will represent the constituency interests as a whole during this
interim period, NOT their company's or their region's interests. This is why
we should vote each one for our "preferred three".

Another different question is who is elected. As we wanted to ensure
geographical deiversification in the representation, we choosed to "eliminate
all those form the same region form the nominee with larger number of votes".
And repeat this with the one at the second place after this operation. This
menas that we decided NOT to elect two reps from the same region, but dows not
imply that we should vote along geographcial slots (in fact this provision
would make little if no sense if we were supposed to cast one vote per region).

Imagine that I believe that in a given region candidates A and B are great,
while I don't like candiade C. I have no pinion or preference about cnadiates
in other regions. In this case, I have a styorng interest in voting for both
candiadtes A and B, even if thery are form the same region and one of them
will NOT be elected, simply because I don't know what the rest of them are
voting and therefore if I could choose only one ther would be a greater risk
that candidate C, the one I don't like gets elected.

There is a further argument. We hav decided to enforce geographcial diversity,
but we should teswt this option against "best candidates" rule, jsut to know
what it gives. Pehaps all our preferred candidates come all form NA and AP.
and even if we will stick to our geographci divrsity rule (which I support,
btw) we should at least know for future decisions "how much does it cost" from
efficiency terms.

Flr all these reasons I encourage you to state that each registrar should vote
for his/her prefereed candidates, making sure we get a broup of good reps,
letting our charter deal with geographic diversity thereafter.

I would alos ask you NOT to accept votes thru the list. I htought that you had
got in touch with Dan Busarow in order to use his VoteBot system. In case it
is not ready, please ask for "double counters": ie, ask people to send balots
to you AND Ivan Poepe, who volunteered for the jof.

I wouls also encourage you to accept multiple votes, the newer overruling the
previous. As most of us are not old-time friends, we might better eveluate the
different otptions during this week and therefore, perhaps we could change our
mind. Last vote before deadline counts.

Finally, I would apreciate you send a separate mail to "voting reps" mails
clarigying all above points, in one snese or another, and also specifying deadline.

Thanks for all.