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

[ga] STV voting method

Dr. Nii N. Quaynor wrote:

>One would wish that we get back to our original discussion and away from
>discussion on personalities .
>1. Merits and demerits of different voting methods (STV and variants)
>2. Which of these methods is appropriate for addressing various challenges
>eg. NC elections, alternate/reserve NC membership and geographic diversity.
>3. What variants the methods meet the GA needs best.
>4. How to utilize post election results to make decisions, if possible
>we could state each of the challenges or problems and discuss till
>consensus. I hope we can make progress that way.

Before discussing HOW voting will occur, let us take a closer look at WHO
gets to vote.  I raised an earlier concern that the new bylaws amendment,
Article VI, Section 4 (see
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws-changes-16sept99.htm), which asks NC
candidates for the ICANN board to recuse themnselves from voting and
discussion, could potentially leave the NC bereft of voters if all were
nominated, an unrealistic but nonetheless possible scenario.

At the Names Council meeting yesterday (Real Audio archive at
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/dnso), various NC members raised other
interesting concerns.  For example, if all the NC members of one
constituency were nominated for the ICANN board, this bylaws amendment
would leave that constituency voteless.

ICANN's response to this conundrum, delivered by Andrew McLaughlin, was
that the constituency can ask its Administrative Committee to *appoint*,
for purposes of the election period only, a *temporary replacement* to the
Names Council.

Does anyone else here have a problem with that solution?  If you don't, let
me explain.   An appointment to the Names Council removes voting for the
ICANN board one more level from direct representation.  The Administrative
Committee of a constituency is not likely an elected body, and now it,
potentially, will be able to hand-pick the NC representatives who can vote
for ICANN board members from the DNSO.

It is easy to understand why ICANN wants NC members running for the board
to recuse themselves from the voting.  The Names Council has only 21
members, and the opportunity to fix a slate or to line up votes among those
insiders is too apparent.

But the temporary replacement on the NC of an appointed member has its woes
and woebegones, too.  I have proposed a different solution, one that asks
individuals to CHOOSE between participation on the Names Council or a role
on the ICANN board.  Simply put, membership on the Names Council should
eliminate the possibility of nomination for the ICANN board.  And NC
members who route around this requirement and resign too close to the board
election to allow their constituency time to vote in a replacement will
leave their voting position unfilled.

Thus, I ask that this list discuss the issue of WHO gets to vote and
contribute to the feedback on the bhylaws proposal by posting comments at


Ellen Rony                         ____             The Domain Name Handbook
Co-author		       ^..^     )6     http://www.domainhandbook.com
+1 (415) 435-5010    	       (oo) -^--                     ISBN 0879305150
Tiburon, CA                        W   W               erony@marin.k12.ca.us
	   DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age