Voting infrastructure rules
Currently we have in place a set of rules (approved by the ALAC in June 2009) on how votes are to be conducted (that is votes that are not in reference to named individuals). Those rules are: 1. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how many people have voted. 2. As the vote is proceeding, we can see who has voted. 3. As the vote is proceeding, we can see a tally of how the votes have been cast. 4. When the vote is ended, we can see how each person has voted. 5. The order of the options should not change as the vote proceeds. 6. Outsiders who cannot vote can look at all of the above interim results. Rule 4 was there because previously, we had on some occasions used a BigPulse option to order the options so that the winning one was first. The rules were debated and approved because at the time, we seemd to used a semi-random set of voting parameters for each vote. Based on the last few votes, we seem to be back at the state of semi-random variations in each vote (the current ALS approval vote does not allow a voter to see who has already voted, the recent votes on ALAC statements on Thickwhois and IGO/INGO questions did allow viewing the list of those who had voted). Since we are in the process of cleaning up the overall ALAC rules, it makes sense to revisit this one prior to having staff adjust procedures to ensure that our rules are being met. So I ask whether these are the rules we want or if changes need to be made. I would suggest one change. Since these rules were created to have a similar effect as a face-to-face vote with all parties and observers in the same room, I would suggest the replacement of 4 with: 4. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how voted have voted. This was considered last time, but was not used due to a fear that seeing how people vote could influence later votes. My thoughts are that this is exactly what happens in a face-to-face vote and should not change because we are voting electronically. Does anyone have any thoughts on this. Specifically: A) Should we keep the current rules? B) Should we replace 4. as suggested? C) Any other changes you believe we should make? We regularly demand transparency of other parts of ICANN and particularly the Board. I think that we should use the same standard for ourselves. Alan
Hi Alan I am happy with your suggested change, vix: replace 4 as you suggested. Holly On 31/01/2013, at 3:42 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Currently we have in place a set of rules (approved by the ALAC in June 2009) on how votes are to be conducted (that is votes that are not in reference to named individuals).
Those rules are:
1. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how many people have voted. 2. As the vote is proceeding, we can see who has voted. 3. As the vote is proceeding, we can see a tally of how the votes have been cast. 4. When the vote is ended, we can see how each person has voted. 5. The order of the options should not change as the vote proceeds. 6. Outsiders who cannot vote can look at all of the above interim results.
Rule 4 was there because previously, we had on some occasions used a BigPulse option to order the options so that the winning one was first. The rules were debated and approved because at the time, we seemd to used a semi-random set of voting parameters for each vote.
Based on the last few votes, we seem to be back at the state of semi-random variations in each vote (the current ALS approval vote does not allow a voter to see who has already voted, the recent votes on ALAC statements on Thickwhois and IGO/INGO questions did allow viewing the list of those who had voted).
Since we are in the process of cleaning up the overall ALAC rules, it makes sense to revisit this one prior to having staff adjust procedures to ensure that our rules are being met.
So I ask whether these are the rules we want or if changes need to be made.
I would suggest one change. Since these rules were created to have a similar effect as a face-to-face vote with all parties and observers in the same room, I would suggest the replacement of 4 with:
4. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how voted have voted.
This was considered last time, but was not used due to a fear that seeing how people vote could influence later votes. My thoughts are that this is exactly what happens in a face-to-face vote and should not change because we are voting electronically.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this. Specifically:
A) Should we keep the current rules? B) Should we replace 4. as suggested? C) Any other changes you believe we should make?
We regularly demand transparency of other parts of ICANN and particularly the Board. I think that we should use the same standard for ourselves.
Alan
_______________________________________________ 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...)
*Thanks Alan for proposing the change to 4), which I support (the rest to remain as is).* *Jean-Jacques. * 2013/1/31 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
Currently we have in place a set of rules (approved by the ALAC in June 2009) on how votes are to be conducted (that is votes that are not in reference to named individuals).
Those rules are:
1. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how many people have voted. 2. As the vote is proceeding, we can see who has voted. 3. As the vote is proceeding, we can see a tally of how the votes have been cast. 4. When the vote is ended, we can see how each person has voted. 5. The order of the options should not change as the vote proceeds. 6. Outsiders who cannot vote can look at all of the above interim results.
Rule 4 was there because previously, we had on some occasions used a BigPulse option to order the options so that the winning one was first. The rules were debated and approved because at the time, we seemd to used a semi-random set of voting parameters for each vote.
Based on the last few votes, we seem to be back at the state of semi-random variations in each vote (the current ALS approval vote does not allow a voter to see who has already voted, the recent votes on ALAC statements on Thickwhois and IGO/INGO questions did allow viewing the list of those who had voted).
Since we are in the process of cleaning up the overall ALAC rules, it makes sense to revisit this one prior to having staff adjust procedures to ensure that our rules are being met.
So I ask whether these are the rules we want or if changes need to be made.
I would suggest one change. Since these rules were created to have a similar effect as a face-to-face vote with all parties and observers in the same room, I would suggest the replacement of 4 with:
4. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how voted have voted.
This was considered last time, but was not used due to a fear that seeing how people vote could influence later votes. My thoughts are that this is exactly what happens in a face-to-face vote and should not change because we are voting electronically.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this. Specifically:
A) Should we keep the current rules? B) Should we replace 4. as suggested? C) Any other changes you believe we should make?
We regularly demand transparency of other parts of ICANN and particularly the Board. I think that we should use the same standard for ourselves.
Alan
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Hi, I think that having rule 4 means that we are swayed by how people vote. People have to exercise independence in the manner they vote and it should not be tempered with how another has voted. Not knowing how others have voted means during the voting process brings in a sense of independence to the process etc. I get the point in terms of when we organise face to face votes people can see anyhow how people are voting or likely to vote but given that bulk of the process is done remotely. On the other hand there is nothing stopping members from conferring how they are going to generally vote but I think that to a large extent, it is useful not to know how people are voting when the process is debated remotely for the sake of a degree of independence. Kind Regards, On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 7:11 PM, JJS <jjs.global@gmail.com> wrote:
*Thanks Alan for proposing the change to 4), which I support (the rest to remain as is).* *Jean-Jacques. * 2013/1/31 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
Currently we have in place a set of rules (approved by the ALAC in June 2009) on how votes are to be conducted (that is votes that are not in reference to named individuals).
Those rules are:
1. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how many people have voted. 2. As the vote is proceeding, we can see who has voted. 3. As the vote is proceeding, we can see a tally of how the votes have been cast. 4. When the vote is ended, we can see how each person has voted. 5. The order of the options should not change as the vote proceeds. 6. Outsiders who cannot vote can look at all of the above interim results.
Rule 4 was there because previously, we had on some occasions used a BigPulse option to order the options so that the winning one was first. The rules were debated and approved because at the time, we seemd to used a semi-random set of voting parameters for each vote.
Based on the last few votes, we seem to be back at the state of semi-random variations in each vote (the current ALS approval vote does not allow a voter to see who has already voted, the recent votes on ALAC statements on Thickwhois and IGO/INGO questions did allow viewing the list of those who had voted).
Since we are in the process of cleaning up the overall ALAC rules, it makes sense to revisit this one prior to having staff adjust procedures to ensure that our rules are being met.
So I ask whether these are the rules we want or if changes need to be made.
I would suggest one change. Since these rules were created to have a similar effect as a face-to-face vote with all parties and observers in the same room, I would suggest the replacement of 4 with:
4. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how voted have voted.
This was considered last time, but was not used due to a fear that seeing how people vote could influence later votes. My thoughts are that this is exactly what happens in a face-to-face vote and should not change because we are voting electronically.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this. Specifically:
A) Should we keep the current rules? B) Should we replace 4. as suggested? C) Any other changes you believe we should make?
We regularly demand transparency of other parts of ICANN and particularly the Board. I think that we should use the same standard for ourselves.
Alan
_______________________________________________ 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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...)
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
Hi Alan and all, When a change is suggested, there must be an obvious advantage for the ALAC or for the At-Large members. Honestly, I dont see such advantage except that it will make people more influenced. I do prefer that the voters do their duty of voting as independently as possible. My address tijani.benjemaa@fmai.org is not working properly any more. Please use one of the 2 following addresses: tijani.benjemaa@topnet.tn or tijani.benjemaa@planet.tn ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- -----Message d'origine----- De : alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg Envoyé : jeudi 31 janvier 2013 05:43 À : ALAC Working List Objet : [ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules Currently we have in place a set of rules (approved by the ALAC in June 2009) on how votes are to be conducted (that is votes that are not in reference to named individuals). Those rules are: 1. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how many people have voted. 2. As the vote is proceeding, we can see who has voted. 3. As the vote is proceeding, we can see a tally of how the votes have been cast. 4. When the vote is ended, we can see how each person has voted. 5. The order of the options should not change as the vote proceeds. 6. Outsiders who cannot vote can look at all of the above interim results. Rule 4 was there because previously, we had on some occasions used a BigPulse option to order the options so that the winning one was first. The rules were debated and approved because at the time, we seemd to used a semi-random set of voting parameters for each vote. Based on the last few votes, we seem to be back at the state of semi-random variations in each vote (the current ALS approval vote does not allow a voter to see who has already voted, the recent votes on ALAC statements on Thickwhois and IGO/INGO questions did allow viewing the list of those who had voted). Since we are in the process of cleaning up the overall ALAC rules, it makes sense to revisit this one prior to having staff adjust procedures to ensure that our rules are being met. So I ask whether these are the rules we want or if changes need to be made. I would suggest one change. Since these rules were created to have a similar effect as a face-to-face vote with all parties and observers in the same room, I would suggest the replacement of 4 with: 4. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how voted have voted. This was considered last time, but was not used due to a fear that seeing how people vote could influence later votes. My thoughts are that this is exactly what happens in a face-to-face vote and should not change because we are voting electronically. Does anyone have any thoughts on this. Specifically: A) Should we keep the current rules? B) Should we replace 4. as suggested? C) Any other changes you believe we should make? We regularly demand transparency of other parts of ICANN and particularly the Board. I think that we should use the same standard for ourselves. Alan _______________________________________________ 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)
All: I like the idea of not knowing how other people have voted while the vote is proceeding, so my recommendation is to stay with #4 the way is now. However, #4 have not been implemented for some time now (and it should for transparency purposes). Most often we get the final results but not how each person has voted. -ed On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
Currently we have in place a set of rules (approved by the ALAC in June 2009) on how votes are to be conducted (that is votes that are not in reference to named individuals).
Those rules are:
1. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how many people have voted. 2. As the vote is proceeding, we can see who has voted. 3. As the vote is proceeding, we can see a tally of how the votes have been cast. 4. When the vote is ended, we can see how each person has voted. 5. The order of the options should not change as the vote proceeds. 6. Outsiders who cannot vote can look at all of the above interim results.
Rule 4 was there because previously, we had on some occasions used a BigPulse option to order the options so that the winning one was first. The rules were debated and approved because at the time, we seemd to used a semi-random set of voting parameters for each vote.
Based on the last few votes, we seem to be back at the state of semi-random variations in each vote (the current ALS approval vote does not allow a voter to see who has already voted, the recent votes on ALAC statements on Thickwhois and IGO/INGO questions did allow viewing the list of those who had voted).
Since we are in the process of cleaning up the overall ALAC rules, it makes sense to revisit this one prior to having staff adjust procedures to ensure that our rules are being met.
So I ask whether these are the rules we want or if changes need to be made.
I would suggest one change. Since these rules were created to have a similar effect as a face-to-face vote with all parties and observers in the same room, I would suggest the replacement of 4 with:
4. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how voted have voted.
This was considered last time, but was not used due to a fear that seeing how people vote could influence later votes. My thoughts are that this is exactly what happens in a face-to-face vote and should not change because we are voting electronically.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this. Specifically:
A) Should we keep the current rules? B) Should we replace 4. as suggested? C) Any other changes you believe we should make?
We regularly demand transparency of other parts of ICANN and particularly the Board. I think that we should use the same standard for ourselves.
Alan
_______________________________________________ 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...)
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
Dear all, I also think that it is not good that people see how other have voted before the vote ends. That means that we keep #4 as in the current rules I don't see really understand the importance of #6. Thank you Yaovi ________________________________ De : Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> À : ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Envoyé le : Jeudi 31 janvier 2013 5h42 Objet : [ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules Currently we have in place a set of rules (approved by the ALAC in June 2009) on how votes are to be conducted (that is votes that are not in reference to named individuals). Those rules are: 1. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how many people have voted. 2. As the vote is proceeding, we can see who has voted. 3. As the vote is proceeding, we can see a tally of how the votes have been cast. 4. When the vote is ended, we can see how each person has voted. 5. The order of the options should not change as the vote proceeds. 6. Outsiders who cannot vote can look at all of the above interim results. Rule 4 was there because previously, we had on some occasions used a BigPulse option to order the options so that the winning one was first. The rules were debated and approved because at the time, we seemd to used a semi-random set of voting parameters for each vote. Based on the last few votes, we seem to be back at the state of semi-random variations in each vote (the current ALS approval vote does not allow a voter to see who has already voted, the recent votes on ALAC statements on Thickwhois and IGO/INGO questions did allow viewing the list of those who had voted). Since we are in the process of cleaning up the overall ALAC rules, it makes sense to revisit this one prior to having staff adjust procedures to ensure that our rules are being met. So I ask whether these are the rules we want or if changes need to be made. I would suggest one change. Since these rules were created to have a similar effect as a face-to-face vote with all parties and observers in the same room, I would suggest the replacement of 4 with: 4. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how voted have voted. This was considered last time, but was not used due to a fear that seeing how people vote could influence later votes. My thoughts are that this is exactly what happens in a face-to-face vote and should not change because we are voting electronically. Does anyone have any thoughts on this. Specifically: A) Should we keep the current rules? B) Should we replace 4. as suggested? C) Any other changes you believe we should make? We regularly demand transparency of other parts of ICANN and particularly the Board. I think that we should use the same standard for ourselves. Alan _______________________________________________ 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...)
Yaovi: #6 provides transparency, i.e. our vote proceedings are available for anyone to see. -ed On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Yaovi Atohoun <yaovito@yahoo.fr> wrote:
Dear all,
I also think that it is not good that people see how other have voted before the vote ends. That means that we keep #4 as in the current rules
I don't see really understand the importance of #6.
Thank you Yaovi
________________________________ De : Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> À : ALAC Working List <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Envoyé le : Jeudi 31 janvier 2013 5h42 Objet : [ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules
Currently we have in place a set of rules (approved by the ALAC in June 2009) on how votes are to be conducted (that is votes that are not in reference to named individuals).
Those rules are:
1. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how many people have voted. 2. As the vote is proceeding, we can see who has voted. 3. As the vote is proceeding, we can see a tally of how the votes have been cast. 4. When the vote is ended, we can see how each person has voted. 5. The order of the options should not change as the vote proceeds. 6. Outsiders who cannot vote can look at all of the above interim results.
Rule 4 was there because previously, we had on some occasions used a BigPulse option to order the options so that the winning one was first. The rules were debated and approved because at the time, we seemd to used a semi-random set of voting parameters for each vote.
Based on the last few votes, we seem to be back at the state of semi-random variations in each vote (the current ALS approval vote does not allow a voter to see who has already voted, the recent votes on ALAC statements on Thickwhois and IGO/INGO questions did allow viewing the list of those who had voted).
Since we are in the process of cleaning up the overall ALAC rules, it makes sense to revisit this one prior to having staff adjust procedures to ensure that our rules are being met.
So I ask whether these are the rules we want or if changes need to be made.
I would suggest one change. Since these rules were created to have a similar effect as a face-to-face vote with all parties and observers in the same room, I would suggest the replacement of 4 with:
4. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how voted have voted.
This was considered last time, but was not used due to a fear that seeing how people vote could influence later votes. My thoughts are that this is exactly what happens in a face-to-face vote and should not change because we are voting electronically.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this. Specifically:
A) Should we keep the current rules? B) Should we replace 4. as suggested? C) Any other changes you believe we should make?
We regularly demand transparency of other parts of ICANN and particularly the Board. I think that we should use the same standard for ourselves.
Alan
_______________________________________________ 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...) _______________________________________________ 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...)
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
IMO, it don't amount to a hill o' beans; leaving #4 as is works just as well as changing it. I confess there is just 1 issue that my vote can be influenced *purely* by the vote of another person; IDNs and, by design. The fact is I've hardly invested the brain cells or time on that issue. So without apology, I form an opinion by taking into consideration the positions of the acknowledged experts. The caveat is I have to trust them to align my vote. Here's the thing. Generally speaking, if I have been paying attention to the debate and the 'mood of the room', I wouldn't have to wait to see how others vote to be influenced. Hell, might as well do a 'rock, scissors, paper' at that point and be gone! -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
Currently we have in place a set of rules (approved by the ALAC in June 2009) on how votes are to be conducted (that is votes that are not in reference to named individuals).
Those rules are:
1. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how many people have voted. 2. As the vote is proceeding, we can see who has voted. 3. As the vote is proceeding, we can see a tally of how the votes have been cast. 4. When the vote is ended, we can see how each person has voted. 5. The order of the options should not change as the vote proceeds. 6. Outsiders who cannot vote can look at all of the above interim results.
Rule 4 was there because previously, we had on some occasions used a BigPulse option to order the options so that the winning one was first. The rules were debated and approved because at the time, we seemd to used a semi-random set of voting parameters for each vote.
Based on the last few votes, we seem to be back at the state of semi-random variations in each vote (the current ALS approval vote does not allow a voter to see who has already voted, the recent votes on ALAC statements on Thickwhois and IGO/INGO questions did allow viewing the list of those who had voted).
Since we are in the process of cleaning up the overall ALAC rules, it makes sense to revisit this one prior to having staff adjust procedures to ensure that our rules are being met.
So I ask whether these are the rules we want or if changes need to be made.
I would suggest one change. Since these rules were created to have a similar effect as a face-to-face vote with all parties and observers in the same room, I would suggest the replacement of 4 with:
4. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how voted have voted.
This was considered last time, but was not used due to a fear that seeing how people vote could influence later votes. My thoughts are that this is exactly what happens in a face-to-face vote and should not change because we are voting electronically.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this. Specifically:
A) Should we keep the current rules? B) Should we replace 4. as suggested? C) Any other changes you believe we should make?
We regularly demand transparency of other parts of ICANN and particularly the Board. I think that we should use the same standard for ourselves.
Alan
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Dear Alan, My preference is to keep 4 as is. (Only when the vote is ended, do we (and observers) see how each person has voted.) I wonder what is the need of rules 1 to 3 for ALAC votes conducted online. The duration of such votes is typically several days. Consider a scenario when an online ALAC vote is ongoing and the vote is split with no clear outcome. Observers and ALAC members can see 6 persons voted no, 6 persons voted yes and by a process of elimination, know which 3 ALAC members have yet to vote. Doesn't the potential exist where the 3 ALAC members yet to vote can be contacted by other ALAC members or observers to influence their vote? Perhaps to ensure the integrity of the voting process, rules 1 to 3 should be removed. This would mean no information during the voting period is shown to ALAC members and observers. Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Currently we have in place a set of rules (approved by the ALAC in June 2009) on how votes are to be conducted (that is votes that are not in reference to named individuals).
Those rules are:
1. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how many people have voted. 2. As the vote is proceeding, we can see who has voted. 3. As the vote is proceeding, we can see a tally of how the votes have been cast. 4. When the vote is ended, we can see how each person has voted. 5. The order of the options should not change as the vote proceeds. 6. Outsiders who cannot vote can look at all of the above interim results.
Rule 4 was there because previously, we had on some occasions used a BigPulse option to order the options so that the winning one was first. The rules were debated and approved because at the time, we seemd to used a semi-random set of voting parameters for each vote.
Based on the last few votes, we seem to be back at the state of semi-random variations in each vote (the current ALS approval vote does not allow a voter to see who has already voted, the recent votes on ALAC statements on Thickwhois and IGO/INGO questions did allow viewing the list of those who had voted).
Since we are in the process of cleaning up the overall ALAC rules, it makes sense to revisit this one prior to having staff adjust procedures to ensure that our rules are being met.
So I ask whether these are the rules we want or if changes need to be made.
I would suggest one change. Since these rules were created to have a similar effect as a face-to-face vote with all parties and observers in the same room, I would suggest the replacement of 4 with:
4. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how voted have voted.
This was considered last time, but was not used due to a fear that seeing how people vote could influence later votes. My thoughts are that this is exactly what happens in a face-to-face vote and should not change because we are voting electronically.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this. Specifically:
A) Should we keep the current rules? B) Should we replace 4. as suggested? C) Any other changes you believe we should make?
We regularly demand transparency of other parts of ICANN and particularly the Board. I think that we should use the same standard for ourselves.
Alan
_______________________________________________ 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...)
Dear Alan, I agree with the rationale provided for by Dev. You stimulated interesting discussions and it is healthy to review the philosophy of the rules and why they are framed the way, they are. I also support Dev's recommendations for the Drafting Team. Kind Regards, Sala On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com>wrote:
Dear Alan,
My preference is to keep 4 as is. (Only when the vote is ended, do we (and observers) see how each person has voted.)
I wonder what is the need of rules 1 to 3 for ALAC votes conducted online. The duration of such votes is typically several days.
Consider a scenario when an online ALAC vote is ongoing and the vote is split with no clear outcome. Observers and ALAC members can see 6 persons voted no, 6 persons voted yes and by a process of elimination, know which 3 ALAC members have yet to vote.
Doesn't the potential exist where the 3 ALAC members yet to vote can be contacted by other ALAC members or observers to influence their vote?
Perhaps to ensure the integrity of the voting process, rules 1 to 3 should be removed. This would mean no information during the voting period is shown to ALAC members and observers.
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Currently we have in place a set of rules (approved by the ALAC in June 2009) on how votes are to be conducted (that is votes that are not in reference to named individuals).
Those rules are:
1. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how many people have voted. 2. As the vote is proceeding, we can see who has voted. 3. As the vote is proceeding, we can see a tally of how the votes have been cast. 4. When the vote is ended, we can see how each person has voted. 5. The order of the options should not change as the vote proceeds. 6. Outsiders who cannot vote can look at all of the above interim results.
Rule 4 was there because previously, we had on some occasions used a BigPulse option to order the options so that the winning one was first. The rules were debated and approved because at the time, we seemd to used a semi-random set of voting parameters for each vote.
Based on the last few votes, we seem to be back at the state of semi-random variations in each vote (the current ALS approval vote does not allow a voter to see who has already voted, the recent votes on ALAC statements on Thickwhois and IGO/INGO questions did allow viewing the list of those who had voted).
Since we are in the process of cleaning up the overall ALAC rules, it makes sense to revisit this one prior to having staff adjust procedures to ensure that our rules are being met.
So I ask whether these are the rules we want or if changes need to be made.
I would suggest one change. Since these rules were created to have a similar effect as a face-to-face vote with all parties and observers in the same room, I would suggest the replacement of 4 with:
4. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how voted have voted.
This was considered last time, but was not used due to a fear that seeing how people vote could influence later votes. My thoughts are that this is exactly what happens in a face-to-face vote and should not change because we are voting electronically.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this. Specifically:
A) Should we keep the current rules? B) Should we replace 4. as suggested? C) Any other changes you believe we should make?
We regularly demand transparency of other parts of ICANN and particularly the Board. I think that we should use the same standard for ourselves.
Alan
_______________________________________________ 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...)
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...)
-- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com>wrote:
Doesn't the potential exist where the 3 ALAC members yet to vote can be contacted by other ALAC members *or observers* to influence their vote?
True, but IMHO, some ways up from the case where someone who probably didn't even hear an argument would deign to *tell* me how to vote! I fully expect somebody to try and influence my vote via argument, even supplication. Quite frankly if this was not one of the objectives of argument/discussion on a matter before a vote is called, then might as well get one a them capuchins, put a ALAC bib on that little sucker, give him a pencil and tell 'em 'here boy, go make your mark'! -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================
participants (9)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Carlton Samuels -
Dev Anand Teelucksingh -
Eduardo Diaz -
Holly Raiche -
JJS -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro -
Tijani BEN JEMAA -
Yaovi Atohoun