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

RE: [atlarge-discuss] role of voting

Thomas Roessler wrote:

>1. I call it voting registry manipulation when someone announces a
>_specific_ vote widely, and, in that way, adds lots of new members
>to a voting registry which has been growing rather slowly before
>(attempts count, too).

This is not unlike our voter registration process in Oregon: there is a
registration cutoff a month or so before the election.  If you miss it you
don't vote.

>2. The "important vs. unimportant" discussion doesn't belong on this
>list, I believe.  Obviously, we have strongly divergent views on
>that.  I believe that the motion which gains stronger support should
>be considered the "more important" one.

I agree.  Consensus is what we're working for.

>3. If you want to avoid lonely decisions on whether or not a
>specific vote should be held, don't put that into the chair's (or,
>here, the panel's) discretion, but have some simple, "mechanical"
>rules to make the decision.  In these rules, in particular avoid
>fuzzy "scope of possible vote" definitions - these will be applied
>and interpreted differently, and lead to all kinds of not so nice
>discussions, as we have just seen in the GA.

Rule of law!  What a concept!  :)  I agree.

BTW, I wanted give the DNSO-GA kudos through you for having the integrity to
basically call for the DoC to dissolve ICANN and try again!  It took guts
and seems to have been well received by the press in the few instances it
made it!

Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.com 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