Re: [atlarge-discuss] what most members want

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Dave and all fellow members,

  Dave, I know you mean well here, but your insistence on and E-Mail
based voting system, especially the DNSO GA's is inconsistent with good
sense or reason.  In this Joop is correct.

  It is also true that Joops "Polling Booth" could be used effectively
and efficiently if implemented on a server that had some decent performance
and has good network connection.  In addition the keys for the
management of Joops "Polling Booth" would need to be turned over
to a third uninterested party so as to ensure accuracy as well as
uninterested influence with respect to polls for developing positions
and so forth for the members.  However as Joop is unwilling to do this
as he wasn't when he ran the IDNO into the ground, such use of the
"Polling Booth" is less than adequately trusted...

DPF wrote:

> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801



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