[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] voting and polling
- To: James Love <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] voting and polling
- From: Jeff Williams <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 17:42:15 -0700
- CC: Thomas Roessler <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Micheal Sherrill <email@example.com>, atlarge discuss list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, gen full <email@example.com>
- Delivered-To: mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org
- List-Help: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Subscribe: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Mailing-List: contact email@example.com; run by ezmlm
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <200205310123.AA210108662@mail.beethoven.com> <200205302140.AA293732544@mail.beethoven.com> <200205302138.AA198508790@mail.beethoven.com> <20020531080234.GP27077@yoda.does-not-exist.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
James and all stakeholders or interested parties,
As this is a cross-over issue or discussion I am cc'ing the DNSO
GA Full list.
( More Below )
James Love wrote:
> I think TR deserves to have a new title...
> In my mind, TR is discussing a substantive and strategic issue. How might
> one structure feedback loops from a large public.
I am not sure that structuring such feed back is a workable
or even a wise thing to do...
> 1. One issue is should the GA operate a lot differently from an at large,
> even though there currently is no at large recognized by ICANN, and the DNSO
> also doesn't have an individual constituency.
Two big problems here! Yes but there has been a call for an Small
business constituency by Danny Younger, and a failed effort for
and Individuals constituency (IDNO) as well. These are two key
elements that need to be incorporated in to ICANN's structure
along with an At-Large, which once existed, if ICANN is to
have a chance of being viable in short order...
> 2. Another issue is should the votes on substantive matters by public or
> private, in either the GA or an at large. Does the transparency of who
> voted for what make the votes more meaningful?
No it doesn't. In fact the opposite is the more likely situation when it
comes to voting... This has been historically shown many times...
Hence I don't see a need or reason to rehash several hundred years
of history to justify or not justify such a consideration again...
> 3. Another issue concerns how frequently one might want to hold votes or
> polls, or how much of an exceptional circumstance this might be. There are
> pluses and minus for doing lots of few votes. Part of the problem concerns
> voter fatigue (and turnout), or the non-durable nature of a particular vote,
> when there is continual voting, for example, on the same issue.
Voter Fatigue is over rated, but does occur and will despite whatever
approaches are taken to reduce or eliminate it. And again Jamie,
as you most likely know this too has been shown many many times
to be the case as well... So, hence such a concern, although
true, is less of a concern than making votes by voters public...
> WRT 3, there is something to be said for mailed ballots, in that sends a
> signal that a vote will be "important" and be enshrined and recorded in a
> way that makes it "important" to campaign for a particular point of view to
> be endorsed. One might also have multiple feedback systems. One observes
> very little use of some web based polling mechanisms. But even these could
> be more interesting if there were ways to address who could vote, and how
> the poll results influenced real decisions. Votes on leadership are real
> decisions. Many policy issues in the ICANN context seem to be advisory,
> since the ICANN board has so much power, and TR is correct that the DNSO is
> a funny animal.
Yes the DNSO has been and continues to be poorly structured or
over structured. The "Constituency Model" which was hotly debated
early on, is flawed badly. The DNSO GA is all that is really needed
and Constituencies can be "Self Formed" within the DNSO GA,
but would have not specific role or veto, as they can have now
and do frequently exercise in the NC as NC Reps are elected
by those constituencies...
This is not however to say that the constituency model cannot
work and even work well at times. It can. But thus far it has not...
> There is also strategy. How does one deal with very bad proposals for ICANN
> "reform" when ICANN has crushed mechanisms for registering public opinion,
> such as burying the existing very large at large voter roll, which only
> ICANN can use, and which ICANN refusses to use.
This is a real problem. One the one hand you have the privacy
concerns and it is a real issue. On the other you have and ICANN
that does not want and Individuals Constituency, an At-Large
where actual stakeholders/users can vote on policy issues,
and some fledgling AT-Large efforts such as ICANNATLARGE.COM
that are having a number of difficulties (Mainly funding).
> Which is why, in the short run, I push for votes in the GA. Of course,
> having TR tell reporters the votes are meaningless stupid exercises, isn't
GOod point. And as Chair, I feel strongly that TR is not acting in
the best interests of the GA members as the recent REBID Motion #1
clearly demonstrated during the debating period and is now a part of
the permanent record of the DNSO GA...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Roessler" <email@example.com>
> To: "Micheal Sherrill" <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "atlarge discuss list"
> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 4:02 AM
> Subject: [atlarge-discuss] T.R. had a coffee this morning.
> : Congratulations. We now have a "what does Thomas Roessler do or
> : think" thread across no less than three mailing lists, it seems.
> : That's a really sensible use of everyone's time and bandwidth. May
> : I suggest that you focus on issues instead of people?
> : To make this abundantly clear: I have some views on what tools are
> : more (or less) appropriate for the GA (votes are not, open polls
> : are; as far as substantial topics are concerned). I have these
> : views for a reason. This reason does not apply to an at-large
> : membership - the opposite is true: Votes _are_ an appropriate tool
> : for an at-large membership organization. But then again, I'm not
> : going to stop you (in fact, how should I even do that?) from using
> : open polls if you prefer that. Thus, it seems like we are in
> : "violent agreement" on the substance of what I said, as far as the
> : at-large membership is concerned.
> : On 2002-05-30 21:40:32 -0400, Micheal Sherrill wrote:
> : >Thomas Roessler has just given us his personal goals.
> : No.
> : On 2002-05-31 01:23:53 -0400, Micheal Sherrill wrote:
> : >We would all profit by thinking through what we want to say before
> : >touching the keyboard.
> : Yes, indeed.
> : --
> : Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> : ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> : To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
> : For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org