I assume "nut voting" is a typo. But the other possibilities are interesting to consider. On Saturday, August 1, 2015, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
What about
not present nut voting (by proxy)?
el
-- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Aug 1, 2015, at 20:48, Steve Crocker <steve@shinkuro.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
Alan,
I am both curious and willing to help on the technical aspects of the combining multiple requires or desires into an implementable plan.
Is it possible to gather the multiple requirements and/or desires so we can see whether a feasible solution exists?
Let me offer some candidate terminology that may be granular enough to help express the desired results.
Within a given group and with respect to a particular vote, the individuals will usually fall into one of the following five categories:
o (NP) Not present (and hence not participating)
o (Rec) Present but not voting because of recusal, usually because of self-declared conflict or because the the group perceives a conflict.
o (Abs) Present but not voting because the individual doesn’t wish to express either a positive or negative vote.
o (No) Present and voting no.
o (Yes) Present and voting yes.
Can you express the desired results in terms of one or more inequalities, ratios or other expressions among these terms?
Thanks,
Steve
On Aug 1, 2015, at 11:57 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <javascript:;>> wrote:
Ed, I believe that I was the first one to make a strong statement that abstentions should be excluded from the vote. As few of us worked VERY hard to come up with a vote-counting methodology that did that and at the same time did not allow a very small part of the community (the ones who "care" about the issue) to make momentous decisions on behalf of ICANN.
We did arrive at some scenarios that were acceptable from the point of view of outcomes, but that were difficult to implement and perhaps more importantly to explain. In addition to the simple Yes vs No count that you allude to, it involved parallel requirements for a minimum number of SO/ACs to support the proposition (and that support was absolute, only counting Yes votes vs the maximum that could be cast), and perhaps requiring a minimum number of non-sbstention votes to be cast. As I said, it might work, but would be a black-box and completely opaque method to those who did not take the time to thoroughly understand it.
If you can come up with a simple, clear way of doing it, please propose one.
Alan
At 01/08/2015 08:10 AM, Edward Morris wrote:
About twenty minutes ago I submitted directly to the Chairs, per the instructions given to us by Thomas in his email of 29 July, two minority statements for (hopefully) inclusion in the report about to be released for public comment. I had not intended to file any minority statement but, upon reflection, two aspects of our proposal caused me concern.
The statements are attached here for community inspection and review.
Kind regards,
Edward Morris
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:;> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:;> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:;> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:;> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community