Until a few days ago, we all thought that for the ALAC voting people would have two possible votes on three candidates.
Sebastian pointed out, that he was surprised of the change of voting procedure and did not see why this procedure should be applied on choosing two out of three. I was surprised too and I alos think that it makes more sense to keep the simple version of two possilbe votes for each ALS.
Jeannette:
To be completely clear, this procedure was adopted in Lisbon on March
29th I believe, and this was posted for all ALSes to review
immediately thereafter.
As a consequence, any ALS - or any person - could have queried this
and a debate could have been had at any point in the last six weeks.
There was no such debate and no questions raised - until now.
To reiterate my previous point: every decision reached by the
community such as those in Lisbon cannot be re-opened because one or
two decide, after a long interval, to question it.
The standard decision-making convention in international meetings and
processes is that any decision validly taken may only be reconsidered
if three-quarters of the decision-making body were to decide formally
to reconsider the question. We do not see anything like that level of
interest in doing so in this matter.
Dear Nick,
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
Verner, and all:
Could we please, instead of trying to find things to object to, try
and find things to agree on.
To repeat: there is no difference in the outcome whether one ranks
three candidates, or whether you dispose of two individual votes for a
candidate of three.
Usually, voting procedures do have strong effects on the outcome. This
is why they are an issue in almost every country. Think of the debates
on the advantages and disadvantages of majority systems and
prepresentattional systems.
I think this new procedural debate would stop instantly if you could
bring some proof that these two voting systems produce indeed the very
same results.
This is why asked whether we have some information on the results of
both systems.
thank you. jeanette
HOWEVER: insisting on changing everything because one or two
individuals want to change what was agreed by a much larger group of
ALSes in Lisbon is basically the same as suggesting that any one ALS
can veto any decision reached by a much larger group of ALSes.
This would result in nothing ever being achieved.
Hello,
my first question: "noon UTC" is 1 pm GMT?
For the ALAC-Seats the rankingsystems makes for me no sense and it seems
to be not democratical for such a few seats to elecect. Therefor we
should use for the election of the ALAC-Seats tweo possible Votes for
each voter.
Greatings,
Werner
Nick Ashton-Hart schrieb:
Verner:
Thank you for your note. The first vote will be to decide whether or
not the single ALS who is not a party to the MoU will be voting on the
ALAC members and the board members.
That vote will start today.
With respect to the ranking system: This is what was decided in Lisbon
as the procedure to be used, and so that procedure is carried forward
to the actual vote. It is the same process that was strongly
recommended with respect to the board seats, so on a practical level
it makes sense to use only one type of voting on one ballot to reduce
confusion.
wrote:
Hello,
"VOTERS: The designated voters (1 per ALS) of ALSes who have signed the
Memorandum of Understanding with ICANN either in-person at the Lisbon
ICANN meeting or digitally via electronic mail - at any time before the
beginning of the voting"
There must be a mistake: First of all we have to decide, if this "strong
recommendation" will be accepted.
Next: If there are two seats we have to vote for ALAC, then every voter
should have two possible votes. The two candidates with the most votes
will be elected. This is the democratical way of election. There ist no
need for such a ranking.
After the election of the two members for the ALAC seats we have two
decide, how many seats shall the EURALO board have. The election of the
EURALO boad members can't start before we know how many board members
are to elect.
Kind Regarts,
Werner Hülsmann
####################################################
Vorratsdatenspeicherung? Nein Danke! - Noch ist es
####################################################
--
Dipl. Inform. Werner Hülsmann
Vorstandsmitglied der Deutschen Vereinigung für Datenschutz (DVD) e.V. Obere Laube 48 - D-78462 Konstanz
Tel.: 07531 / 365905-6 Mobil: 0179 / 46 86 484
_______________________________________________
EURO-ALS mailing list
--
--
Regards,
Nick Ashton-Hart
PO Box 32160
London N4 2XY
United Kingdom
UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011
USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135
mobile: +44 (7774) 932798
Skype: nashtonhart
_______________________________________________
EURO-Discuss mailing list