Enfranchising absent voters
Fellow Council members, The small group drafting a proposal to enfranchise absent Council members has completed its work. Attached is a proposal for electronic voting by absent Council members. The group believes this process is sufficient to enfranchise the votes of absent Council members and thus no duplication with a system of proxy voting is needed. In short one or the other are workable and both achieve the same goal: we opted to recommend electronic voting. Note: 1) In discussion the group raised the issue of conflicts of interest. The electronic voting proposal contains a sufficient reference on conflicts. However, the group recommends that Council separately address this issue of conflicts as there are a number of aspects that could be usefully explored with respect to ordinary in person voting and conflicts.This discussion on conflicts need not delay a Council decision on electronic voting. 2) One group member also raised the issue of an option for a Council member present at a meeting to instead vote later by electronic vote. As this need went beyond the enfranchisement of absent voters and introduces additionally complexity it is not included in the attached proposal and may again be considered separately if Council so desire. Philip Sheppard Chuck Gomes Robin Gross ----------------------------------------
I would like to propose one change to the e-voting proposal. It was considered by the small group but we was decided that it went beyond the scope of our task, i.e., providing a means of voting for absent Councilors. In the spirit of attempting to minimize disenfranchisement of voting rights by any Councilor or constituency, I propose the following change of the second bullet under Section 4 (Process): - It currently reads, "An e-vote may only be cast by a member absent from the Council meeting." - I propose it be changed to read, "An e-vote may only be cast by a member absent from the Council meeting or one who needs time for further consultation or additional information." We have sometimes encountered situations when individual Councilors may not have had time to fully review an issue (e.g., they are new to the Council, they have been temporarily out of contact, etc.). We have also had times when Councilors need further direction from their Constituency before they can vote. In both of these cases, the only alternative now is to abstain, which essentially results in a 'no' vote. Allowing e-voting in these cases would provide a brief amount of time for obtaining more information and/or constituency direction. If this was allowed, the same process as described in Section 4 and the same rules as listed in Section 5 would still apply. In particular, regarding the rules, e-voting would only be initiated if it could possibly impact the success of the motion or the level of support (e.g., majority or supermajority). In the small group that developed the e-voting proposal several good questions were raised and briefly discussed via email. Here are some of the questions and my responses: 1. Our present wording is that we first vote (then know the outcome may change by counting the absentees! ). Does this change mean we cannot first vote? - A vote could still occur before it is determined whether e-voting would be initiated. - In cases where a Councilor needed more time, he/she would just have to indicate that they need more time, just like some of us do on occasion already. Ideally, we probably should make sure we are ready to vote before the vote is called, but that still might result in a situation where a majority are ready and a minority is not; by allowing e-voting in cases where it may impact the result avoids disenfranchisement of the minority. 2. How would the voting process work if Councilors were allowed to request more time? 1) A motion is made. 2) Some Councilors communicate that more time is needed to either consult with their constituency or to become more informed. 3) The Council decides to call for a vote anyway. 4) When Councilor A is asked to vote, he/she states that he needs more time and requests that roll-call call voting be allowed according to the established rules and defers his/her vote to the end. 5) Before deferred votes are considered, the rules are evaluated to determine if e-voting is in order; if so, it is initiated without a need for any further voting by those who deferred their votes and a deadline is set per the rules. 6) If e-voting is not prescribed by the rules, then those who deferred their votes are given the opportunity to vote (for, against, abstain). 3. Isn't the idea of a Council member saying - well I may vote, I may not, oh well now I have seen everyone else vote I will now, strange? 1) A councilor who requests more time is only given the option to vote later if e-voting will not be initiated. 2) An alternative would be to not allow later voting except in the case if e-voting is allowed. 3) Note that in the past we have allowed members to defer their vote until the end; is that a problem? If so, then we should change our current practice. I have never considered that a problem. A different way to handle the problem I am trying to solve would be to always ensure that everyone is ready to vote before a vote is called. I could live with that but it wouldn't be nearly as time efficient as simply allowing e-voting in cases where the voting results could be impacted. Discussion welcome. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:47 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Enfranchising absent voters Fellow Council members, The small group drafting a proposal to enfranchise absent Council members has completed its work. Attached is a proposal for electronic voting by absent Council members. The group believes this process is sufficient to enfranchise the votes of absent Council members and thus no duplication with a system of proxy voting is needed. In short one or the other are workable and both achieve the same goal: we opted to recommend electronic voting. Note: 1) In discussion the group raised the issue of conflicts of interest. The electronic voting proposal contains a sufficient reference on conflicts. However, the group recommends that Council separately address this issue of conflicts as there are a number of aspects that could be usefully explored with respect to ordinary in person voting and conflicts.This discussion on conflicts need not delay a Council decision on electronic voting. 2) One group member also raised the issue of an option for a Council member present at a meeting to instead vote later by electronic vote. As this need went beyond the enfranchisement of absent voters and introduces additionally complexity it is not included in the attached proposal and may again be considered separately if Council so desire. Philip Sheppard Chuck Gomes Robin Gross ----------------------------------------
I argued against this new change in the group as it gets too complex. It would mean a council member chooses to vote then or later. But would only vote later if the trigger for an e-vote that the outcome may be affected applies. But that choice itself (to vote later or not) itself may affect the trigger. This means the vote is open to gaming and the choice is thus unethical. Moreover, presenting such a complex proposal to the Board would likely kill it. Philip PS Our current practise is to delay a vote until we are all ready, so the benefit of the addition seems to be small in comparison to the cost in complexity / ethics.
Hi, While anything can be gamed, including absenting oneself right before the vote, I believe that the text is better as it stands. I tried to think of a couple of ways of tightening it, e.g. - absent as of the time the role call is taken - but people arrive late, and some have to leave early - absent when the agenda item first comes under discussion, but this is still subject to the condition above and, the person who can game it by leaving just before the vote cold also game it by leaving just before the discussion. which is a sense is even more counter productive. and while it is true that people could game it, by coming to fewer meetings or by always leaving just before a critical vote, I think that this sort of behavior would: a. be unlikely in anyone wiling to serve on the council b. be noticed in such a way that some one would eventually take action I think Philip's point in the his PS. is well taken, by and large, whenever someone has said, I need more time, or I need to consult, we have delayed the vote until the next meeting. a. On 18 Jan 2008, at 09:49, Philip Sheppard wrote:
I argued against this new change in the group as it gets too complex. It would mean a council member chooses to vote then or later. But would only vote later if the trigger for an e-vote that the outcome may be affected applies. But that choice itself (to vote later or not) itself may affect the trigger. This means the vote is open to gaming and the choice is thus unethical.
Moreover, presenting such a complex proposal to the Board would likely kill it.
Philip
PS Our current practise is to delay a vote until we are all ready, so the benefit of the addition seems to be small in comparison to the cost in complexity / ethics.
I guess I would rather like to vote whether to initiate a vote or not ;) instead of this very complicated setup which will cause alot of confusion. tom -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Januar 2008 10:08 An: Council GNSO Betreff: Re: [council] Enfranchising absent voters Hi, While anything can be gamed, including absenting oneself right before the vote, I believe that the text is better as it stands. I tried to think of a couple of ways of tightening it, e.g. - absent as of the time the role call is taken - but people arrive late, and some have to leave early - absent when the agenda item first comes under discussion, but this is still subject to the condition above and, the person who can game it by leaving just before the vote cold also game it by leaving just before the discussion. which is a sense is even more counter productive. and while it is true that people could game it, by coming to fewer meetings or by always leaving just before a critical vote, I think that this sort of behavior would: a. be unlikely in anyone wiling to serve on the council b. be noticed in such a way that some one would eventually take action I think Philip's point in the his PS. is well taken, by and large, whenever someone has said, I need more time, or I need to consult, we have delayed the vote until the next meeting. a. On 18 Jan 2008, at 09:49, Philip Sheppard wrote:
I argued against this new change in the group as it gets too complex. It would mean a council member chooses to vote then or later. But would only vote later if the trigger for an e-vote that the outcome may be affected applies. But that choice itself (to vote later or not) itself may affect the trigger. This means the vote is open to gaming and the choice is thus unethical.
Moreover, presenting such a complex proposal to the Board would likely kill it.
Philip
PS Our current practise is to delay a vote until we are all ready, so the benefit of the addition seems to be small in comparison to the cost in complexity / ethics.
hi, I an not sure what you mean. Vote to initiate any vote? If so how does that help the people who are absent? Or vote to initiate a delayed vote? In either case, wouldn't this then be a specific act of disenfranchisement? I.e. we decide to vote despite the fact that people are not present as opposed to merely being enabled to vote because of quorum and put into extended period voting because the absent council member(s) could change the result in a significant way. I think that is one of the virtues of an automatic process in that there is no decision for us to make that could be construed as prejudicial. a. On 18 Jan 2008, at 13:42, Thomas Keller wrote:
I guess I would rather like to vote whether to initiate a vote or not ;) instead of this very complicated setup which will cause alot of confusion.
tom
Let's be clear that there is nothing unethical about needing to consult further with our constituencies or to get more information. I agree that claiming one of these reasons dishonestly would be unethical but I really don't think we any of us would do that, and if we did, we have a much bigger problem. I am still not convinced that the suggestion is all that complex but like I said, if we are truly willing to delay votes until all are ready, that solves the problem I was trying to solve. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 3:49 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [council] Enfranchising absent voters I argued against this new change in the group as it gets too complex. It would mean a council member chooses to vote then or later. But would only vote later if the trigger for an e-vote that the outcome may be affected applies. But that choice itself (to vote later or not) itself may affect the trigger. This means the vote is open to gaming and the choice is thus unethical. Moreover, presenting such a complex proposal to the Board would likely kill it. Philip PS Our current practise is to delay a vote until we are all ready, so the benefit of the addition seems to be small in comparison to the cost in complexity / ethics.
Chuck, It's an intriguing idea. I agree that we need to take a look at how to best address the scenarios you raise. Having said that, it is my view that the Board would likely reject our entire e-voting request if we try to incorporate more into it than is necessary to address the problem we're trying to solve -- enfranchising absent Councilors. I do have significant concerns about gaming. There is also the possibility that one Constituency could significantly delay a vote - not through any bad faith intent but as a result of internal division that prevents a single "constituency position" or a tendency to defer action until absolutely necessary. Kristina -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:50 PM To: Philip Sheppard; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Enfranchising absent voters I would like to propose one change to the e-voting proposal. It was considered by the small group but we was decided that it went beyond the scope of our task, i.e., providing a means of voting for absent Councilors. In the spirit of attempting to minimize disenfranchisement of voting rights by any Councilor or constituency, I propose the following change of the second bullet under Section 4 (Process): - It currently reads, "An e-vote may only be cast by a member absent from the Council meeting." - I propose it be changed to read, "An e-vote may only be cast by a member absent from the Council meeting or one who needs time for further consultation or additional information." We have sometimes encountered situations when individual Councilors may not have had time to fully review an issue (e.g., they are new to the Council, they have been temporarily out of contact, etc.). We have also had times when Councilors need further direction from their Constituency before they can vote. In both of these cases, the only alternative now is to abstain, which essentially results in a 'no' vote. Allowing e-voting in these cases would provide a brief amount of time for obtaining more information and/or constituency direction. If this was allowed, the same process as described in Section 4 and the same rules as listed in Section 5 would still apply. In particular, regarding the rules, e-voting would only be initiated if it could possibly impact the success of the motion or the level of support (e.g., majority or supermajority). In the small group that developed the e-voting proposal several good questions were raised and briefly discussed via email. Here are some of the questions and my responses: 1. Our present wording is that we first vote (then know the outcome may change by counting the absentees! ). Does this change mean we cannot first vote? - A vote could still occur before it is determined whether e-voting would be initiated. - In cases where a Councilor needed more time, he/she would just have to indicate that they need more time, just like some of us do on occasion already. Ideally, we probably should make sure we are ready to vote before the vote is called, but that still might result in a situation where a majority are ready and a minority is not; by allowing e-voting in cases where it may impact the result avoids disenfranchisement of the minority. 2. How would the voting process work if Councilors were allowed to request more time? 1) A motion is made. 2) Some Councilors communicate that more time is needed to either consult with their constituency or to become more informed. 3) The Council decides to call for a vote anyway. 4) When Councilor A is asked to vote, he/she states that he needs more time and requests that roll-call call voting be allowed according to the established rules and defers his/her vote to the end. 5) Before deferred votes are considered, the rules are evaluated to determine if e-voting is in order; if so, it is initiated without a need for any further voting by those who deferred their votes and a deadline is set per the rules. 6) If e-voting is not prescribed by the rules, then those who deferred their votes are given the opportunity to vote (for, against, abstain). 3. Isn't the idea of a Council member saying - well I may vote, I may not, oh well now I have seen everyone else vote I will now, strange? 1) A councilor who requests more time is only given the option to vote later if e-voting will not be initiated. 2) An alternative would be to not allow later voting except in the case if e-voting is allowed. 3) Note that in the past we have allowed members to defer their vote until the end; is that a problem? If so, then we should change our current practice. I have never considered that a problem. A different way to handle the problem I am trying to solve would be to always ensure that everyone is ready to vote before a vote is called. I could live with that but it wouldn't be nearly as time efficient as simply allowing e-voting in cases where the voting results could be impacted. Discussion welcome. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:47 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Enfranchising absent voters Fellow Council members, The small group drafting a proposal to enfranchise absent Council members has completed its work. Attached is a proposal for electronic voting by absent Council members. The group believes this process is sufficient to enfranchise the votes of absent Council members and thus no duplication with a system of proxy voting is needed. In short one or the other are workable and both achieve the same goal: we opted to recommend electronic voting. Note: 1) In discussion the group raised the issue of conflicts of interest. The electronic voting proposal contains a sufficient reference on conflicts. However, the group recommends that Council separately address this issue of conflicts as there are a number of aspects that could be usefully explored with respect to ordinary in person voting and conflicts.This discussion on conflicts need not delay a Council decision on electronic voting. 2) One group member also raised the issue of an option for a Council member present at a meeting to instead vote later by electronic vote. As this need went beyond the enfranchisement of absent voters and introduces additionally complexity it is not included in the attached proposal and may again be considered separately if Council so desire. Philip Sheppard Chuck Gomes Robin Gross ----------------------------------------
Chuck, I'd like to comment on when to vote, so the change proposed in allowing delayed votes. As it happens in real life (presidential or congress/senate elections), I'd propose that whoever needs to cast an e-vote, does it before the council meeting. Then e-votes are disclosed once the people present in the council meeting have voted. This may have some CONs as early availability of documents and crystal clear statements on "what" to vote, but effectively dismantles any issue regarding "gaming" and offers much more transparency. If because of whatever reason (quorum, phone issues, etc) presential poll has to be delayed, e-votes are destroyed. If a Constituency has not agreed a vote due to internal division, poll might be postponed to next meeting. To avoid obstructionism, a given constituency (or individual) can only claim once to postpone that given votation. And any given votation can only be delayed (by constituency or individual request) twice. This implies keeping the sentence as "An e-vote may only be cast by a member absent from the Council meeting." Comments ? jordi Rosette, Kristina wrote:
Chuck,
It's an intriguing idea. I agree that we need to take a look at how to best address the scenarios you raise.
Having said that, it is my view that the Board would likely reject our entire e-voting request if we try to incorporate more into it than is necessary to address the problem we're trying to solve -- enfranchising absent Councilors.
I do have significant concerns about gaming. There is also the possibility that one Constituency could significantly delay a vote - not through any bad faith intent but as a result of internal division that prevents a single "constituency position" or a tendency to defer action until absolutely necessary.
Kristina -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:50 PM To: Philip Sheppard; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Enfranchising absent voters
I would like to propose one change to the e-voting proposal. It was considered by the small group but we was decided that it went beyond the scope of our task, i.e., providing a means of voting for absent Councilors.
In the spirit of attempting to minimize disenfranchisement of voting rights by any Councilor or constituency, I propose the following change of the second bullet under Section 4 (Process): - It currently reads, "An e-vote may only be cast by a member absent from the Council meeting." - I propose it be changed to read, "An e-vote may only be cast by a member absent from the Council meeting or one who needs time for further consultation or additional information."
We have sometimes encountered situations when individual Councilors may not have had time to fully review an issue (e.g., they are new to the Council, they have been temporarily out of contact, etc.). We have also had times when Councilors need further direction from their Constituency before they can vote. In both of these cases, the only alternative now is to abstain, which essentially results in a 'no' vote. Allowing e-voting in these cases would provide a brief amount of time for obtaining more information and/or constituency direction.
If this was allowed, the same process as described in Section 4 and the same rules as listed in Section 5 would still apply. In particular, regarding the rules, e-voting would only be initiated if it could possibly impact the success of the motion or the level of support (e.g., majority or supermajority).
In the small group that developed the e-voting proposal several good questions were raised and briefly discussed via email. Here are some of the questions and my responses:
1. Our present wording is that we first vote (then know the outcome may change by counting the absentees! ). Does this change mean we cannot first vote?
- A vote could still occur before it is determined whether e-voting would be initiated. - In cases where a Councilor needed more time, he/she would just have to indicate that they need more time, just like some of us do on occasion already. Ideally, we probably should make sure we are ready to vote before the vote is called, but that still might result in a situation where a majority are ready and a minority is not; by allowing e-voting in cases where it may impact the result avoids disenfranchisement of the minority.
2. How would the voting process work if Councilors were allowed to request more time?
1) A motion is made. 2) Some Councilors communicate that more time is needed to either consult with their constituency or to become more informed. 3) The Council decides to call for a vote anyway. 4) When Councilor A is asked to vote, he/she states that he needs more time and requests that roll-call call voting be allowed according to the established rules and defers his/her vote to the end. 5) Before deferred votes are considered, the rules are evaluated to determine if e-voting is in order; if so, it is initiated without a need for any further voting by those who deferred their votes and a deadline is set per the rules. 6) If e-voting is not prescribed by the rules, then those who deferred their votes are given the opportunity to vote (for, against, abstain).
3. Isn't the idea of a Council member saying - well I may vote, I may not, oh well now I have seen everyone else vote I will now, strange?
1) A councilor who requests more time is only given the option to vote later if e-voting will not be initiated. 2) An alternative would be to not allow later voting except in the case if e-voting is allowed. 3) Note that in the past we have allowed members to defer their vote until the end; is that a problem? If so, then we should change our current practice. I have never considered that a problem.
A different way to handle the problem I am trying to solve would be to always ensure that everyone is ready to vote before a vote is called. I could live with that but it wouldn't be nearly as time efficient as simply allowing e-voting in cases where the voting results could be impacted.
Discussion welcome.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:47 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Enfranchising absent voters
Fellow Council members, The small group drafting a proposal to enfranchise absent Council members has completed its work. Attached is a proposal for electronic voting by absent Council members. The group believes this process is sufficient to enfranchise the votes of absent Council members and thus no duplication with a system of proxy voting is needed. In short one or the other are workable and both achieve the same goal: we opted to recommend electronic voting.
Note: 1) In discussion the group raised the issue of conflicts of interest. The electronic voting proposal contains a sufficient reference on conflicts. However, the group recommends that Council separately address this issue of conflicts as there are a number of aspects that could be usefully explored with respect to ordinary in person voting and conflicts.This discussion on conflicts need not delay a Council decision on electronic voting. 2) One group member also raised the issue of an option for a Council member present at a meeting to instead vote later by electronic vote. As this need went beyond the enfranchisement of absent voters and introduces additionally complexity it is not included in the attached proposal and may again be considered separately if Council so desire.
Philip Sheppard Chuck Gomes Robin Gross
----------------------------------------
-- Jordi Iparraguirre Fundació puntCAT www.domini.cat
Thanks Jordi. The small group did discuss the possibility of allowing e-votes in advance of meetings but we didn't go as far as you did. Like you say, we don't always have a final motion enough in advance to do this and sometimes even when we do the motion is changed in the meeting, so I am not sure it would work to always require e-voting in advance, but it could possibly happen in certain cases if that is a direction the Council wanted to go. With regard to gaming, the primary reason we proposed clear cut rules for gaming rather than making e-voting discretionary on a case by case basis was to minimize the chance of gaming. But as I am sure everyone can tell, it is probably impossible to totally eliminate the possibility of gaming. In my opinion, we need to try to design the process as best we can including to minimize the chances of gaming, but we also need to avoid getting bogged down with excessive worry about gaming or we will not make any progress. At some point we need to trust one another. There may be times when that trust will be violated but I personally think they would be rare and if I am wrong we have included a review mechanism and we can go back and make changes. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordi Iparraguirre Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:30 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: Re: [council] Enfranchising absent voters Chuck, I'd like to comment on when to vote, so the change proposed in allowing delayed votes. As it happens in real life (presidential or congress/senate elections), I'd propose that whoever needs to cast an e-vote, does it before the council meeting. Then e-votes are disclosed once the people present in the council meeting have voted. This may have some CONs as early availability of documents and crystal clear statements on "what" to vote, but effectively dismantles any issue regarding "gaming" and offers much more transparency. If because of whatever reason (quorum, phone issues, etc) presential poll has to be delayed, e-votes are destroyed. If a Constituency has not agreed a vote due to internal division, poll might be postponed to next meeting. To avoid obstructionism, a given constituency (or individual) can only claim once to postpone that given votation. And any given votation can only be delayed (by constituency or individual request) twice. This implies keeping the sentence as "An e-vote may only be cast by a member absent from the Council meeting." Comments ? jordi Rosette, Kristina wrote:
Chuck,
It's an intriguing idea. I agree that we need to take a look at how to best address the scenarios you raise.
Having said that, it is my view that the Board would likely reject our entire e-voting request if we try to incorporate more into it than is necessary to address the problem we're trying to solve -- enfranchising absent Councilors.
I do have significant concerns about gaming. There is also the possibility that one Constituency could significantly delay a vote - not through any bad faith intent but as a result of internal division that prevents a single "constituency position" or a tendency to defer action until absolutely necessary.
Kristina -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:50 PM To: Philip Sheppard; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [council] Enfranchising absent voters
I would like to propose one change to the e-voting proposal. It was considered by the small group but we was decided that it went beyond the scope of our task, i.e., providing a means of voting for absent Councilors.
In the spirit of attempting to minimize disenfranchisement of voting rights by any Councilor or constituency, I propose the following change of the second bullet under Section 4 (Process): - It currently reads, "An e-vote may only be cast by a member absent from the Council meeting." - I propose it be changed to read, "An e-vote may only be cast by a member absent from the Council meeting or one who needs time for further consultation or additional information."
We have sometimes encountered situations when individual Councilors may not have had time to fully review an issue (e.g., they are new to the Council, they have been temporarily out of contact, etc.). We have also had times when Councilors need further direction from their Constituency before they can vote. In both of these cases, the only alternative now is to abstain, which essentially results in a 'no' vote. Allowing e-voting in these cases would provide a brief amount of time for obtaining more information and/or constituency direction.
If this was allowed, the same process as described in Section 4 and the same rules as listed in Section 5 would still apply. In particular, regarding the rules, e-voting would only be initiated if it could possibly impact the success of the motion or the level of support (e.g., majority or supermajority).
In the small group that developed the e-voting proposal several good questions were raised and briefly discussed via email. Here are some of the questions and my responses:
1. Our present wording is that we first vote (then know the outcome may change by counting the absentees! ). Does this change mean we cannot first vote?
- A vote could still occur before it is determined whether e-voting would be initiated. - In cases where a Councilor needed more time, he/she would just have to indicate that they need more time, just like some of us do on occasion already. Ideally, we probably should make sure we are ready to vote before the vote is called, but that still might result in a situation where a majority are ready and a minority is not; by allowing e-voting in cases where it may impact the result avoids disenfranchisement of the minority.
2. How would the voting process work if Councilors were allowed to request more time?
1) A motion is made. 2) Some Councilors communicate that more time is needed to either consult with their constituency or to become more informed. 3) The Council decides to call for a vote anyway. 4) When Councilor A is asked to vote, he/she states that he needs more time and requests that roll-call call voting be allowed according to the established rules and defers his/her vote to the end. 5) Before deferred votes are considered, the rules are evaluated to determine if e-voting is in order; if so, it is initiated without a need for any further voting by those who deferred their votes and a deadline is set per the rules. 6) If e-voting is not prescribed by the rules, then those who deferred their votes are given the opportunity to vote (for, against, abstain).
3. Isn't the idea of a Council member saying - well I may vote, I may not, oh well now I have seen everyone else vote I will now, strange?
1) A councilor who requests more time is only given the option to vote later if e-voting will not be initiated. 2) An alternative would be to not allow later voting except in the case if e-voting is allowed. 3) Note that in the past we have allowed members to defer their vote until the end; is that a problem? If so, then we should change our current practice. I have never considered that a problem.
A different way to handle the problem I am trying to solve would be to always ensure that everyone is ready to vote before a vote is called. I could live with that but it wouldn't be nearly as time efficient as simply allowing e-voting in cases where the voting results could be impacted.
Discussion welcome.
Chuck
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:47 AM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Enfranchising absent voters
Fellow Council members, The small group drafting a proposal to enfranchise absent Council members has completed its work. Attached is a proposal for electronic voting by absent Council members. The group believes this process is sufficient to enfranchise the votes of absent Council members and thus no duplication with a system of proxy voting is needed. In short one or the other are workable and both achieve the same goal: we opted to recommend electronic voting.
Note: 1) In discussion the group raised the issue of conflicts of interest. The electronic voting proposal contains a sufficient reference on conflicts. However, the group recommends that Council separately address this issue of conflicts as there are a number of aspects that could be usefully explored with respect to ordinary in person voting and conflicts.This discussion on conflicts need not delay a Council decision on electronic voting. 2) One group member also raised the issue of an option for a Council member present at a meeting to instead vote later by electronic vote. As this need went beyond the enfranchisement of absent voters and introduces additionally complexity it is not included in the attached proposal and may again be considered separately if Council so desire.
Philip Sheppard Chuck Gomes Robin Gross
----------------------------------------
-- Jordi Iparraguirre Fundació puntCAT www.domini.cat
Jordi the group discussed pre voting but were concerned that this would prevent any amendments to a vote by even one word at the meeting itself thus undermining the role of Council as a whole> Philip
participants (7)
-
Avri Doria -
Gomes, Chuck -
Jordi Iparraguirre -
Philip Sheppard -
philip.sheppard＠aim.be
-
Rosette, Kristina -
Thomas Keller