Re: [ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules
In my mind, it is essential that we see who has voted and who has not. That allows regional people to make sure their ALAC members vote. If we are so worried about people who have no clue how to vote on an issue and will be easily pressured, I really think that we have selected the wrong ALAC members. As Evan said, all of us occasionally find that on a specific topic, we don't have strong positions, but are glad to take a hint from someone we respect. The alternative, as I have mentioned is to not vote at all, or vote randomly, or blindly say yes to every such poll. All of which I find far more distasteful than having a colleague you respect point you in a direction. Remember, these votes are being taken electronically because we do not have a meeting scheduled at a convenient time. If we did have such a meeting, it would all be out in the open. Why hide the details in this situation. In fact, although I had not thought about it earlier, seeing that a colleague that you respect voted in the opposite direction to your inclination is a really healthy thing. You may well call them up and ask why - what do they know that you don't - and maybe should. If we did not use BigPulse, we would probably do what so many other organizations do in this kind of situation, simply send your vote to the mailing list. And it is all in the open, and people who don't vote can be urged on by their colleagues. Or maybe we want to go to secret ballots for everything. Alan At 31/01/2013 02:26 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh 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...)
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>wrote:
In my mind, it is essential that we see who has voted and who has not. That allows regional people to make sure their ALAC members vote.
If we are so worried about people who have no clue how to vote on an issue and will be easily pressured, I really think that we have selected the wrong ALAC members.
The same can be said with governance models in governments etc. Rules exist because there are underlying philosophy. Accountability and transparency will still be observed with the details of how the vote went at the end of the voting process rather than during. There is an interesting paper on the rationale and arguments for differing systems where in a Discussion Paper by Adrian Vermeule he says that " The hope is that the open vote will represent an aggregation of maximally responsible judgments, the secret vote an aggregation of maximally autonomous ones, and that both will be informative, both for voters and other actors. This justification is most persuasive in cases where the voting body provides a collective judgment that is advisory rather than binding. " Source: http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Vermeule_674.pdf He points out that there have been practical examples where outcome changed when deploying both systems and for us as an ALAC we need to assess and determine which ones will be far best suited for our purposes.
As Evan said, all of us occasionally find that on a specific topic, we don't have strong positions, but are glad to take a hint from someone we respect. The alternative, as I have mentioned is to not vote at all, or vote randomly, or blindly say yes to every such poll. All of which I find far more distasteful than having a colleague you respect point you in a direction.
Remember, these votes are being taken electronically because we do not have a meeting scheduled at a convenient time. If we did have such a meeting, it would all be out in the open. Why hide the details in this situation.
In fact, although I had not thought about it earlier, seeing that a colleague that you respect voted in the opposite direction to your inclination is a really healthy thing. You may well call them up and ask why - what do they know that you don't - and maybe should.
If we did not use BigPulse, we would probably do what so many other organizations do in this kind of situation, simply send your vote to the mailing list. And it is all in the open, and people who don't vote can be urged on by their colleagues.
Or maybe we want to go to secret ballots for everything.
Alan
At 31/01/2013 02:26 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh 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...)
_______________________________________________ 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
Comments inline On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
In my mind, it is essential that we see who has voted and who has not. That allows regional people to make sure their ALAC members vote.
It *is* essential. Absolutely. And that information is (and should be) published AFTER the voting period has concluded. Not during the vote.
If we are so worried about people who have no clue how to vote on an issue and will be easily pressured, I really think that we have selected the wrong ALAC members.
As Evan said, all of us occasionally find that on a specific topic, we don't have strong positions, but are glad to take a hint from someone we respect. The alternative, as I have mentioned is to not vote at all, or vote randomly, or blindly say yes to every such poll. All of which I find far more distasteful than having a colleague you respect point you in a direction.
Remember, these votes are being taken electronically because we do not have a meeting scheduled at a convenient time. If we did have such a meeting, it would all be out in the open. Why hide the details in this situation.
In fact, although I had not thought about it earlier, seeing that a colleague that you respect voted in the opposite direction to your inclination is a really healthy thing. You may well call them up and ask why - what do they know that you don't - and maybe should.
Except in a F2F vote or online vote during a conference call, there is no time given to ask a member during a vote why are they voting yes, no or abstaining. Only after the vote is taken, tallied and ended, does the chair ask ALAC members if they wish to have a statement on the record as to the reasons for their vote (yes, no or abstention).
If we did not use BigPulse, we would probably do what so many other organizations do in this kind of situation, simply send your vote to the mailing list. And it is all in the open, and people who don't vote can be urged on by their colleagues.
Or maybe we want to go to secret ballots for everything.
No. It is appropriate that the voting results be published at the end of the voting period, showing who voted, who did not vote, how they voted and their reasons (if given). Dev Anand
Alan
At 31/01/2013 02:26 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh 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...)
Alan, Several things : · I dont think that there are on the ALAC people who have no clue to vote on an issue · I dont think we selected the wrong ALAC members · I think that if an ALAC member doesnt have a precise opinion on a certain issue, he/she will contact a member who is more involved is the subject and who he/she trust to understand better the issue (not to ask how to vote) so that he/she can vote according to his own opinion. This happened to me in certain cases, and Im not shy to ask about things that I dont have the full understanding. · The most important question is: what is the advantage of the change??? o Would it give better result for the vote? o Would it give voters more independence? 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 20:51 À : Dev Anand Teelucksingh; ALAC Working List Objet : Re: [ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules In my mind, it is essential that we see who has voted and who has not. That allows regional people to make sure their ALAC members vote. If we are so worried about people who have no clue how to vote on an issue and will be easily pressured, I really think that we have selected the wrong ALAC members. As Evan said, all of us occasionally find that on a specific topic, we don't have strong positions, but are glad to take a hint from someone we respect. The alternative, as I have mentioned is to not vote at all, or vote randomly, or blindly say yes to every such poll. All of which I find far more distasteful than having a colleague you respect point you in a direction. Remember, these votes are being taken electronically because we do not have a meeting scheduled at a convenient time. If we did have such a meeting, it would all be out in the open. Why hide the details in this situation. In fact, although I had not thought about it earlier, seeing that a colleague that you respect voted in the opposite direction to your inclination is a really healthy thing. You may well call them up and ask why - what do they know that you don't - and maybe should. If we did not use BigPulse, we would probably do what so many other organizations do in this kind of situation, simply send your vote to the mailing list. And it is all in the open, and people who don't vote can be urged on by their colleagues. Or maybe we want to go to secret ballots for everything. Alan At 31/01/2013 02:26 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh 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
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA C)
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
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)
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Dev Anand Teelucksingh -
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro -
Tijani BEN JEMAA