[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[registrars] Re: Ballot Results Explaination
At 06:39 16-02-2000 -0500, Michael D. Palage wrote:
>With regard to PSI-Japan joining the constituency, I do not recall you
>mentioning it to me, but I do not deny that this conversation may have taken
>place. LA was a whirl wind period of time for everyone in attendance.
>However, I would like to point out that the registrar constituency
>application is available online at:
You might recall our late night session during which we prepared our
objections to the DoC/NSI/ICANN agreement. During that meeting, I was
called upon to vote twice several times.
Regarding the time for voting, seven days is a normal minimum. [My
research, below, will show that the Constituency Charter specifies a
minimum of seven days for nominations and seven days for the election.]
Regarding your recognized excessive work load, please recall that in Berlin
I offered to set up the Votebot. You thought there was not enough
time. There has been considerable time since then to set it up, thereby
reducing one very troublesome and time consuming task.
I recall the woodsman who was so busy chopping wood that he had not time to
sharpen his axe.
BTW, we often discussed the fact that the votebot was set up for exactly
Thank you for characterizing my efforts to recapitulate the facts as
"lawyerly". I think it was more the way a good chemist would do it. But
did you overlook the following?
Re: [registrars] Clarification - Paul Kane's Bio
At 14:59 07-02-2000 -0500, Michael D. Palage wrote:
I am about to send out the ballot, but before I do, I have been asked by a
couple of people to provide clarification on the bio that I forwarded to the
list on behalf of Paul Kane.
That shows me that you had not sent out the ballots as of at 14:59
07-02-2000 -0500. Thus, the five days that you attributed to the voting
period (I would have preferred seven) ended at 14:59 12-02-2000 -0500 plus
how ever many hours later you say the ballot was sent (though I did not
Thank you for advising that there was a technical reason that William was
not sent the ballot. Realizing that time was running short, I shot off
Email to him to advise him to send his vote. He sent it at Date: Sat, 12
Feb 2000 17:04:46 MST.
Now, I quote another section of your present posting:
Although you are correct about the 108 hours and 39 minutes allotted for
voting, there is nothing in the by-laws that mandate a specified minimum
voting period. I believe that this incident mandates the necessity of
amending the by-laws to specify a default period of time that can be
amended when necessity requires. Bob, I call upon your past experiences to
suggest a suitable time frame.
I believe the proper period is "one week". Such was specified by Andrew in
our prior election. I have clipped the following from my archives:
De : Robert F. Connelly <email@example.com>
À : firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
Cc : firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
Date : lundi 31 mai 1999 13:09
Objet : Re: [registrar] FW: Names Council elections
>At 10:08 31-05-99 +0200, Andrew McLaughlin wrote:
>>Hi all, whenever you get this mail.
>>According to the Registrar Consituency Charter we will elect the three
>>Naems Council reps (as provided by ICANN bylaws) using a two weeks
>>timeline, one for nominations and one for voting.
Between the lines of your posting, I sense that you are upset that I
suggested that your actions in the matter of this election were
"arbitrary". Perhaps I misread you, but that could be one interpretation;-}
But since our only prior election was specified by Andrew to be one week, I
thought it unusual that you would seek to have a shorter period for the
Now for another quote:
As secretariat that is one of my other duties. As a result Bill never
received a ballot. The ballot that he did submit after the Friday voting
deadline was bounced from the list as an unauthorized voter.
Michael, I don't understand your "Friday voting deadline". Elsewhere, you
stated, "The ballot was finalized and posted on Monday evening at
15:21." Five days from Monday would be Saturday, not Friday. You made
reference to, "108 hours and 39 minutes allotted for voting". 108 hours is
only four days, five days would be 120 hours, but the seven days which
Andrew stated were required by "the Registrar Consistency Charter" would be
Are we agreed on that point? If so, there is no need for you to consider a
new election. You stated, "However, I do not make the ICANN by-laws rules
I just follow them." Whether it be by-laws or the Constituency Charter,
the issue is clear, seven days are required. You acknowledge that
William's ballot (delayed because 1. you did not send a ballot and 2. you
did not put him on the mailing list and 3. therefore you did not receive
his (bounced) ballot) was received within the "statutory" seven days. You
therefore no longer have a tie for the election. Please let us know who won.
BTW, I concur with your assessment, "because Erica had received at
least one vote, under the by-laws requiring geographic diversity, she is
GURANTEED to win. Therefore, I see no reason to deny her the opportunity to
take her place as a duly elected Names Counsel representative for the
Registrar Constituency in tomorrow's Names Counsel teleconference."
I hope this clarifies the issue. Seriously, I apologize for saying that
you were arbitrary and that the process was undemocratic. As long as we
now agree that the voting period needs to be seven days but you honestly
thought that it could be a shorter period, I think we can put the matter to
bed as an honest, conscientious misunderstanding of the Constituency Charter.
I must close by saying I fully appreciate the tremendous job you do for the
Constituency. I know you are over worked.
Personal regards, BobC