Best handled in a voice chat I think (at least I don't have the patience for anything more at the moment since I still need to get out the STI report by tomorrow morning. I just realized I was distracted (or probably went onto a teleconference) and never responded to your reply about the ALAC seat. I will. Alan PS Carlton says he has been trying to get hold of you I think regarding the new gTLD meeting. Alan At 09/12/2009 09:30 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
2009/12/8 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
What I didn't understand is why there was a conviction that there will be a huge multiplicity of candidates.
We have already spent a fair amount of time defining a nomination and vetting process which should produce a small number of candidates. If we end up with 8 or 9 or 10, that process has dismally failed!
Actually, we haven't really addressed this at all. We have an understanding that a special Working Group will search for suitable candidates, and that each RALO could add one or two.
So ... let's say that the working group puts forward three candidates, and that each RALO adds one of its own. That's eight ... not inconceivable, and not a failure of the process.
We haven't really spent any time defining the "vetting" process, which itself will be time consuming regardless of method used. The Monday call ended up being all about voting methods, even though there are still some loose ends to deal with. And that (the vetting process) is the biggest and loosest end..
Since an election itself is a vetting process, perhaps this could be part of the 'hybrid system" Trish suggested in the Monday call:
1) The WG comes up with its candidates 2) The RALOs add theirs (optional) 3) A first vote (ordered, using STV) is held based on this combined list of candidates 4) the top three from this vote stand for a second found 5) a second round is held (using first past the post, votes are for a single candidate) 6) A third (expedited) runoff round is held if the second round does not produce a winner with 50%+1
Personally, I still think that steps 3 to 6 can (and should) be combined into a single STV vote. But if there is real aversion to trusting everything to an ordered vote, perhaps something like the above scenario could satisfy peoples' needs for more than one round and a simple final vote.
I still think that there needs to be the ability for the voting individuals to go back to their constituencies (ie, the RALOs, ALSs and individual members) for direction/guidance before the votes. In the above scenario, this would take place in advance of steps 1 and 5.
Is this workable?
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org