Hi all, following the discussion I like to provide you with my POV: Free and secret votes (or elections) have especially a high value for some countries where this was not always / is not granted. I am not saying that this has not a high value in all countries of the world. In east Germany (where I come from) and other post soviet countries people were fighting for it 20 years ago, some still do. That could be a reason, why people feel uncomfortable with changing the current rules. Most votes are done online not during the meeting, so in most cases the anonymity which is regulated in #4 is provided, F2F votes are more rare. I feel there is a majority for keeping the current rule, but if we are uncertain we can do a vote on this:) Best Sandra -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Alan Greenberg Gesendet: Freitag, 1. Februar 2013 17:12 An: Evan Leibovitch; ICANN ALAC list Betreff: Re: [ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules Thanks everyone. My sense if that there is a strong inclination to leave the rules exactly as they were. That has the benefit of us not actually having to do anything, which is always a plus. I must admit I was a bit surprised by the level of contributions on something that I saw as a matter of making information available as soon as possible unless there was a strong reason for withholding (as we expect of others in ICANN). But disagreement and debate is healthy, and I have no problem with the outcome. I do support Evan's dream of seeing this level of debate on the policy issues that we are here to address. Alan At 01/02/2013 10:09 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
My latest (and hopefully final) observations:
- I am swayed by those who prefer the original wording of #4.
- The "independence" rationale against changing #4 is without merit (and insulting to the integrity of the voters), though other valid reasons exist
- In a "votes are visible throughout the poll" scheme, more weight of influence may be unduly given to those who vote fastest with an intent to sway. Mid-poll is not the time to be trying to influence one's peers, that should be done in pre-vote debate. Indeed the most compelling argument against changing #4 is that it would further reduce the motivation for pre-vote discussion and issue awareness. As it is, we already are challenged in this regard
- If I feel weak on an issue and want to know the opinion of trusted colleagues, I can do that privately and/or before the vote starts. I don't need to see how they vote during the poll. Better still, there should be open debate where I can hear from everyone on not just how they intend to vote, but why.
- Transparency and accountability requirements are sufficiently fulfilled by posting who-voted-how after the results are final (which is what the original #4 already mandates)
- In a weak moment, I dream that the level and quality of debate given to this process issue matter might perhaps extend to our policy issues.
Cheers,
- Evan _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL AC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C)