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

Re: [atlarge-discuss] what most members want



At 08:29 a.m. 3/04/2003, DPF wrote:


To be precise, the majority of people who took part in an unofficial
poll in your voting booth said they prefer to use the voting booth.
This is hardly surprising.
They could also have rejected the Booth, if they didn't like it.
The Poll is not for generating surprises, but for settling issues that hold us up.

 If the questions had been asked through
the GNSO e-mail ballot system them a majority would have probably said
they prefer that way.
The only way to prove that is to ask the questions again, but then through Kent Crispin's system (a.k.a the GNSO system).
Can you arrange that within the next 3 months?
I will abide by any democratic result.

ALso the phrasing of the questions was horrendous and absolutely
leading.  This is something I know about with eight years professional
involvement in writing non leading poll questions.  Describing one
option as "Asking Elizabeth to do it" instead of "Using the GNSO
Secretariat e-mail ballot" meant of course hardly anyone would pick
that one.
Agree. That question was not one of mine.

I also agree that it *is* difficult to ask non-leading questions and that it is necessary to discuss text in committee , rather than let one individial do it alone.
But your criticism is overly harsh.

The problem with leading questions is not in that they lead, it is in that there are not enough options for answers.
The people here are no fools. If they don't like the options for answers, they use the comment line.
If bias is blatant, opposing voters make that backfire.
Among well-informed participants I do not have such a problem with leading questions as long as any member can put such questions forward and as long as there is a broad variety of them.

Would you please put your experience in working for a political party to the use of the At Large by accepting a nomination on the Polling Commission?

Please, is there anyone who wants to nominate Mr Farrar?


The GNSO system is actually very secure.  It is almost fraud proof as
if someone votes from your e-mail address you get details of the vote,
and also you get to see in the results how your vote was recorded so
one can be sure the totals are correct.
The biggest problems with it:

1. It makes icannatlarge dependent on the ICANN GNSO.
2. the members don't know where the raw results end up.





DPF
--
E-mail: david@farrar.com
ICQ:    29964527
MSN:    dpf666@hotmail.com
-Those who profess to believe in direct democracy pass the real test when they disagree with a result, but still respect it.-



-joop




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