Re: [atlarge-discuss] what most members want

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Thu, 03 Apr 2003 12:53:14 +1300, Joop Teernstra
<terastra@terabytz.co.nz> wrote:

>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.

This isn't a criticism of your booth but just a realisation that the
medium may have influenced results.

I didn't vote for example because with a slow internet connection it
takes far too long for me to vote on each of the numerous ballots.  If
I had received an e-mail which I could just reply to by sticking an X
in the right places, I would have.

>>  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.

Look it isn't a big issue.  There are far bigger ones to settle like
getting some bylaws in place.  After that we can worry about details.
I'm not overly concerned either way but wanted to make the point that
the results are not authoritative for a number of factors.

>>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.

I agree questions should be non leading.  I'd have one person draft up
all the questions but have them approved by some sort of elected body
before they go out for voting.

>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?

I have no faith that icannatlarge.org is a viable body to spend much
time on.  In the year or so it has been operating it has not just
achieved nothing but in fact managed to move backwards so we don't
even have an elected committee anymore.

>>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.

Not necessarily.  They might be willing to give us a copy of the
software if we asked nicely

>2. the members don't know where the raw results end up.

Yes you do.  One just sets up a voting address which includes
nominated scrutineers as well as the program.

DPF
--
E-mail: david@farrar.com
ICQ:    29964527
MSN:    dpf666@hotmail.com

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