Re: [atlarge-discuss] Poll watcher rights and duties

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 18:36 +1200 2003/04/11, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>I think that having several polling systems, developed independent of
>each
>other but each remaining under the sole control of their developer, is
>the
>best option in a situation where nobody is trusted. It is very easy to
>distribute code, but difficult to distribute "control".
>What needs to be distributed is  power. Under  a member-ratified
>Charter of
>checks and balances that spell out how "control" is used.

Not that you necessarily want to hear this, Joop, I think
the very *last* thing one wants to do in a "situation where
nobody is trusted" is have several individuals each in
sole control of one of multiple elections for the same
positions. I think we have only two options before us now:

1) Agree to work together - despite whatever reservations
   we may have about one individual or another - and make
   sure whatever mechanism we choose is jointly administered
   by a committee whose members will co-operate despite the
   fact that they have different interests as individuals.

OR

2) Agree that we can't or won't work together, in which case
   this group ceases to exist as an entity and its members
   are free to do whatever they like individually or with
   a few chosen colleagues.

The distribution of power in any meaningful democracy is
based on the principles that
a) a collective interest exists within its population;
b) its members are willing to delegate tasks and powers
   to those elected to positions of responsibility so
   that the collective interest can be served;
c) efforts must be made to avoid situations where too
   much power is in too few hands or where the elected
   find their personal interests interfering with the
   honest and wholehearted performance of the work they
   were elected for.

>An elected Polling committee can decide which Polling service to use
>and
>they can even rotate Polls between different systems. When the
>outcomes of
>different systems are consistent, it means the systems are neutral.

Questions:
- Who has decided that what the group needs is an elected
  Polling Committee rather than, say, one committee working
  on membership issues and another responsible for conducting
  elections?
- Can you name any legitimate organization which determines
  the neutrality and statistical significance of its polls
  by trying a bunch of different ways rather than making
  sure it chooses a valid method in the first place?

>Instead we can get on with the Nominations  that we are all waiting
>for.

I believe it has been made clear to all here that the Call for
Nominations and explanations of the election process are in
the works already.

>The members do not need any code to start making nominations in the
>public
>Forum.
>Candidates do not need code to post their candidacy , pictures and
>election
>promises.

I believe nobody has, as yet, decided that the nominations
will be made on your site or that candidates will be
required to post their photographs on the Web.

>While they do this, your team can work on a new Polling System.
>What they do need NOW is for someone to "officially" open the
>Nominations
>for the offices that they have voted for.
>(Membership Committee and Polling Commission, Website Panel, Charter
>>writers)

I believe nobody has, as yet, asked ICANNATLARGE.ORG's membership
to ratify the structure you chose to recommend by your Polling
questions. Personally, I am under the impression that this is
a choice for the membership to make at a later date, once it
has elected a new Interim Panel which can present it with
opportunities to vote on such matters.

>If you want to play Panel, this is what is expected of you. Quick
>determination of what Nominations are open, announce them and let the
>members start nominating.
>Make information available on the icannatlarge.org web site that you
>now
>have access to. Point members to the Forum, where they can post
>nominations
>or argue about them.
>No bickering about  code, before any new code is needed. Don't let the
>30
>days slip by.

I believe that, although perfection can't be expected, it is
more important at this stage to do things right than to do
things really fast. I also wonder why, given that ICANNATLARGE.ORG
now has control over its own Web site, it would necessarily
have to use your forums instead of setting up its own
mechanisms specifically for official activities of the
organization.

>If I run all elections, I cannot stand for any office.

For obvious reasons, no person directly involved in
administering the voting mechanism can be a candidate on
the ballot. On the other hand, I don't think anyone asked
you to run *any* elections yet, Joop. There are other
members who don't want to run for office who can do it,
so why not just run yourself?

>But you should not hold up the nominations.

In a fair democratic process, all members must be given an
equal opportunity to nominate candidates for all open
positions. To me, that means nominations cannot be thrown
open until the parameters of the election, including the
nomination period and procedure, are finalized and published
to all members. Following democratic norms is not a way to
"hold up the nominations" but a way to make sure the
process is fair and transparent. I think we need that
very badly at this point.

Regards,

Judyth

##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
"Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."
##########################################################



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