2009/12/8 Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com>
Rank-order voting systems, such as STV/Instant-runoff or Condorcet, must be centrally cumulated and calculated. Precinct counting, in the traditional sense of coming up with a local winner count that is then forwarded to the canvassing center, does not work. Rather with these methods all that can be done in a distributed manner is to record the preferences, and their order, on each ballot and forward those ballot records off to the canvassing center.
Based on what we've been told it can work here. The levels of automation possible certainly do allow for regional elections whose results are carried into the global vote. Indeed a third level of indirection exists in NARALO, where vote is held amongst individuals who are not affiliated with ALSs.
By-the-way, I certainly do not believe that any choice has been made that ALSs are regional voting centers; that tends to suggest too much that the election is among ALAC members rather than the community of internet users.
You are welcome to your beliefs but I don't think they match the current reality. A decisive majority within At-Large(*) has expressed a preference for the 20-vote option in which most -- but not all -- the voters are ALAC members. According the the whole purpose of At-Large, we are charged with doing our best to support and advance the interests of the "community of Internet users", so your point is moot. And I personally have little interest in (yet again) re-debating the suitability of At-Large for this task. - Evan (*) - Actually, every region except NARALO has expressed this preference. Within NARALO, a preponderance of participants also prefer this option; however there are enough individuals opposed that I am reluctant to call the majority view a consensus. Just the same, even of you count NARALO as split, then 4.5 out of 5 regions have expressed a clear preference for the 20 vote option (option 3 in the list at https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?At-Large%20Draft%20Procedure%2... )