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

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 11:40 +1200 2003/04/10, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>We have tried both methods, and the assumptions are based on the
>outcome.
>All members (except Vittorio's 17) received an email and if web-voting
>would have been a huge burden for many who *wanted* to vote, they
>could
>have used the email options (reply to the sender or subscribe to the
>ML) to
>express their frustration.

Joop, I think you've missed the point here. To the best of my
recollection, your invitation message didn't say "here are the
questions, and you can vote by replying if you can't use the
Web-based Polling Booth".

People with limited or intermittent Internet access would not
necessarily have responded by signing up for a heavy-volume
mailing list just to complain, or even necessarily have
complained directly to you. They'd be more likely to assume
that this group isn't actually much concerned about their
problems.

>>As I've said, answering all the
>>questions in the recent poll and writing a few short comments
>>took me nearly 2 hours using dialup.
>
>If many others had the same complaint, it would have shown up in the
>comment lines.

Joop, most people wouldn't have stayed the course. As I'm
sure you must know, most people will leave a Web site if
they don't find what they're looking for in 30 seconds or
so. And people who have problems with Web access to begin
with wouldn't be in a position to post comments on your
site.

>Your concern for the poor is laudable. But how long do you want your
>argument to hold up the elections for this basically self-selected
>group of
>people who are interested in ICANN governance issues?
>These people have said they want structure and elections.

That's unfair, I think. I'm not holding anything up nor do I
want to. Bruce, Jefsey and Eric are working on the necessary
preparations; Abel, Jefsey, Stephen, etc. have been discussing
the software issues with you. I am not directly involved in
either aspect so I'm talking about another issue I believe
is relevant. Why shouldn't I, and why should it be seen as
somehow preventing the elections from happening ... unless
you mean that you had hoped the group would just use the
Polling Booth as it was used for the polls.

>Neither of us *know*.  Such issue can be debated forever, but respect
>for a
>majority vote allows us to move ahead.
>Inclusion (of everyone)  should follow, not lead.

This is where we disagree. I believe that accessibility is
a high priority if we're serious about representing all
Internet users. Treating it as something to be considered
at some unspecified future date sends the wrong kind of
message about what this group cares about.

>The fundamental issue is: What is "democracy" if it does not involve a
>majority deciding?
>
>Democratic governance is promoted by the fact that we are open and
>that our
>leaders are not appointed but elected.
>But our membership is self-appointed and that is something we cannot
>change.

Members in any non-compulsory organization are self-selected.
My question is "what kind of democracy do you have if only
some, rather than all, of the members can participate in the
voting?" Now, I'm not saying you're the only proponent of the
"well, if the majority of the members we did accommodate
vote for X, the rest will just have to lump it" school of
democracy - just that I don't agree with that approach.

In real-life elections in my part of the world, we try not
to disenfranchise the disabled and elderly so we put our
polling stations in accessible rooms rather than up three
flights of stairs. The disabled and elderly are admittedly
a minority of the population but we don't think they should
be prevented from casting their ballots by a technical
barrier. Nobody can say exactly how much this affects the
outcome of any given election ... but they're citizens so
we feel they should have the same rights as other citizens.

On the other hand, I know an organization which
has "elected" its current executive by placing a number
of barriers in the way of anyone who might have run against
the "slate" consisting of some of last year's executive
and some of their hand-picked candidates. Using a very
short nomination period and making sure that the announcement
of its start did not reach the membership until it was over
kept anyone else from running. The balloting itself was
conducted properly and the people now in power were
indeed elected by a majority of ballots cast but with no
other candidates on the ballot, how valid is the election
and how democratic is its result?

>The best we can do is to abide by the majority wish of the
>self-selected
>voters among our self-selected members and create a meaningful
>umbrella
>organization that can speak to ICANN with the force of numbers behind
>it.

I have no problem with voters being self-selected from within
our membership - just with the potential for somebody else
selecting means which prevent them from voting.

As for the umbrella-organization model, to the best of my
knowledge that is not something already-decided but one
of a number of possible approaches.

>Nowhere near "at least triple".
>The last email vote (on the domain name), returned 159 valid votes.
>The most-answered  question (with the longest exposure and no
>password) in
>the Polling Booth returned 148 votes.
>The key question about "division of power" returned 98 secure votes.
>(64% >FOR)

Actually, I wasn't thinking about the domain name vote but
about the previous elections, which I believe got a lot more
participation, perhaps because leadership is more important
than a domain name.

As for the "division of power" issue, there is no question
about the need for division of labour or about the need
for responsible performance of the duties for which one is
elected. I did make some comments about the structure
which your questions presupposed; I'll just say now that
it will be up to the new Panel to lead this group through
the process that will make it a real organization with
a mission and structure its members will ratify and be willing
to work within.

>>Meanwhile, though, I'd like to suggest that, whatever method
>>is chosen for the election, we could perhaps include a short
>>questionnaire with the Call for Nominations message. It
>>would be useful, I think, to know more about who our members are
>>and what kinds of access conditions they actually face. I'm
>>pressed for time now but will try to draft something for
>>discussion if nobody else has a better idea.
>
>Yes please draft some basic questions about access. It might  be a
>good
>thing to incorporate such questions in our sign -up form and enter
>them in
>the database..

I'll try to get to it on the weekend. Meanwhile, could you
guys not do something to make it possible for members to
update their contact information via the Web site? Stephen
Waters sent his change of e-mail address to the list because
he couldn't do it online ... but what comes to the list is
obviously not picked up by the membership database software.
This alone might explain why we can no longer contact some
of our registered members.

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