[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[registrars] RE: Ballot for Names Council election.
The count is now up to 6 ballots. That is 22%. I have no objection to you
making an official ballot and mailing it to the list. But I believe all
ballots should be mailed directly to me. Seeing how I am not running for a
NC seat I do not see where the conflict is. I think the votebot will resolve
future problems but I do not have the authority to
Right now my focus is on bringing about open and fair competition in the
domain name registration business. Today alone I have been on the phone
with (1) Department of Commerce (Karen Rose), (2) ICANN (Louie Touton), (3)
The US Justice Department, (3) Registrars unable to participate in the
teleconference that wanted an update, (4) registrars that have not yet
joined the constituency (my goal is 100% this means NSI also). I would have
been on the phone with the EC but it was too late. I have received
encouragement from the group to stay the course and continue full steam
ahead. I welcome your assistance, you have a wealth of information and
knowledge to offer the group but until I hear from a majority of others I
just can't see halting the election process any further. I believe that
having the votebot fully operational for the permanent elections will be in
the groups best interest, but that is not presently the case.
Hopefully, this e-mail has addressed your concerns.
From: Robert F. Connelly [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 3:58 PM
Cc: Registrar Constituency; CORE-Excom
Subject: RE: Ballot for Names Council election.
At 15:20 17-06-99 -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote:
>The postings to the Listserv have listed all the names/companies/geographic
>region of each nominee. I don't see how that is much different than an
>"official ballot". Each vote that I receive is printed out, and stored
>the completed membership applications. If there is a question about the
>"reliability" of the voting process I can snail mail the results to a third
>party or I meet Ken Stubbs in Orlando and have him review the results.
I can assure you that *any* member of CORE and *any* member of PAB would
expect to received a ballot to mark. (I was the Secretary of PAB and I
have managed the voting for CORE).
If you do not send same at once, I can absolutely assure you that the
results of the ballot will be challenged:-(
The very fact that the balloting ends tomorrow and you have received only 3
ballots should be ample evidence that your procedure has not been
recognized by our members as a "call to ballot".
Three ballots from 27 eligible voters is a mere 11%. For some matters, the
CORE bylaws require a minimum of 50% voter participation to make the vote
binding. (For others, the minimum is 67%.) There are good and valid
reasons for rules of this type.
You may respond that you now have four ballots -- mine having just been
forwarded. However, I would not have done so if I hadn't awakened to the
fact that I had not seen a ballot and wrote to you about it.
I hereby urge you politely to issue a proper ballot by 17:00 EDT today, 17
June 1999. It may be that we will be forced to extend the time for this
vote. That would be unfortunate considering the Names Council Meeting
scheduled for 25 June 1999 in San Jose, California.
Michael, I know you have been doing a lot of work for our Constituency. I
also have plenty of experience with the expectations of our members. It is
for that reason that I offered to assist you with voting or other chores of
I am deeply concerned.
>At the end of the voting period I will announce who voted to make sure that
>no votes were lost and the number of votes that each nominee received. I am
>just trying to to the best job I can with limited resources :)
However, you know that Ivan challenged your system of voting, I agreed and
proposed that he be the second teller. You were copied with this
information. Amadeu also reminded you that the ballot should show that a
copy should go to you and a copy to Ivan.
>From: Robert F. Connelly [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 2:29 PM
>Cc: Registrar Constituency
>Subject: RE: Ballot for Names Council election.
>At 12:19 17-06-99 -0400, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> >Everyone (3 or 4 to date) have just sent me an e-mail with their 3
> >selections, it is as easy as that. Will serious look at the votebot in
> >future but I have much bigger fish to fry coordinating the
> >etc. This is more like a full-time job instead of just a part-time
>I really think you need to format a ballot with all the names in it and
>instructions to return completed ballot to you *and* to Ivan.
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Robert F. Connelly [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> >Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 4:38 AM
> >To: Michael D. Palage
> >Cc: Registrar Constituency
> >Subject: Ballot for Names Council election.
> >Dear Michael:
> >This morning I awoke to the realization that I have not received the
> >for the Names Council election.
> >I don't know whether I have somehow dropped off the mailing list or
> >it has not been sent. Perhaps the anticipated blessed event has
> >the family Palage:-)
> >Michael, please tell me whether there is something I could do to
> >the election process. I leave D.C. this morning at 06:30 and land in
> >Orange County at 10:30. I think it may still be possible to get Dan
> >Busarow to send out a Votebot.
>While the early bird gets the worm,
>the *second* mouse gets the cheese.