RE: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] RE: (fwd) [atlarge-panel] draft motion on membership vote

[bruce@barelyadequate.info]

Jeff Williams wrote:

|    In brief, here are most of the problems that were reported on the
|  DNSO GA E-Mail VOting system:

Thanls for the info Jeff!  This is good cautionary history we can use to
avoid similar failures.

Note that these aren't a failure in the system per se, but rather a failure
to manage it properly.  Here's my thoughts on how we can avoid similar
"integrety" failures in our voting system:

|  1.) Disallowing DNSO members or participants from registering to
|       actually receive a ballot because of their E-Mail addresses.

First, we need to make sure our system supports mail traffic to/from
alternative roots.

We also need to make a point to ensure every registered member gets a
ballot.  This is probably the easiest of our tasks: I recommend that we
solicit two e-mail addresses from our members if they have one, a primary
and a back-up.  Many folks these days have at least two addresses, one at
home and one at work.  The standby address could be used if the message is
rejected for some reason.  Rejected messages could be automatically routed
to volunteer members who would resend them to the alternate address.

|  2.) Multiple ballots sent to the same E-Mail address but were
|        seperate/unique ballots.   This is a particular problem as those
|        separate ballots can than be sent to non-members to vote
|        with as they are separate ballot with different and unique
|        ballot numbers on them.  This is how the votes can get stacked
|        or double counted.

In a normal automated e-mail system, I question whether multiple messages
could be *accidentally* sent out.  Someone would have to do it
intentionally.  That should be one of the watchdogs' responsibilities: to
weed out duplicate votes.

|  3.) Timely sending of the Ballots.

This would be easily avoided by sending an alerting message to the
membership and via he Discuss List when the vote goes out.  Different
persons could do this independently.  The alerting message would include
instructions for reporting non-receipt of a ballot.

|  4.) Format of E-Mail ballots was a bit confusing at first glance
|          leading to Inadvertent mistakes.  Similar to the butterfly
|        ballots in Florida...

The Panel should be charged with ensuring the format of the ballot is *not*
confusing.  The Panel is diverse enough to ensure that cultural differences
that may lead to confusion are weeded out prior to the vote.

|  5.) Selection of the Watchdogs.  This was and always will be the
|       biggest problem.  This should be done by non-members to ensure
|       integrity.

Most assuredly!  To avoid any appearance of impropriety, Panel members must
*never* serve as watchdogs.  They should be volunteer members. (Hint: it
might be a good idea if they stepped up soon!).  :)


Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon USA
bruce@barelyadequate.info
http://www.barelyadequate.info
--------------------------------------------
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de