Re: [EURO-Discuss] [EURO-ALS] Voting Porcedure
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. Best Annette
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org, Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Gesendet: 11.05.07 13:18:27 An: "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette@wzb.eu> CC: Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] [EURO-ALS] Voting Porcedure
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.
On 11/05/07, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette@wzb.eu> wrote:
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.
On 11/05/07, W.Hülsmann (DVD e.V.) <huelsmann@datenschutzverein.de> wrote:
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.
On 11/05/07, W.Hülsmann (DVD e.V.) <huelsmann@datenschutzverein.de> wrote:
Hello,
on https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_elections_2007 I read:
"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 nicht zu spät: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de ####################################################
--
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 E-Mail: huelsmann@datenschutzverein.dehttp://www.datenschutzverein.de
_______________________________________________ EURO-ALS mailing list EURO-ALS@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-als_atlarge-lists.icann...
-- -- 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 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i...
--
Dear colleagues, again I agree with Annettes point of view - to me the actual voting procedure was not clear until yesterday - and doesn't seem I am the only one. And as it does make a difference which voting system to choose - Jeannette pointed that out. So I also have strong objections against the ranking procedure and propose two votes for each ALS. Best Stefan Am 11.05.2007 um 14:11 schrieb Annette Muehlberg:
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.
Best Annette
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org, Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Gesendet: 11.05.07 13:18:27 An: "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette@wzb.eu> CC: Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss@atlarge- lists.icann.org> Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] [EURO-ALS] Voting Porcedure
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.
On 11/05/07, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette@wzb.eu> wrote:
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.
On 11/05/07, W.Hülsmann (DVD e.V.) <huelsmann@datenschutzverein.de> wrote:
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.
On 11/05/07, W.Hülsmann (DVD e.V.) <huelsmann@datenschutzverein.de> wrote:
> Hello, > > on https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi? > euralo_elections_2007 I read: > > "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 nicht zu spät: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de ####################################################
--
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 E-Mail: huelsmann@datenschutzverein.dehttp:// www.datenschutzverein.de
_______________________________________________ EURO-ALS mailing list EURO-ALS@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro- als_atlarge-lists.icann.org
-- -- 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 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro- discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
--
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro- discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
-- Stefan Hügel (sh@fiff.de) FIfF - Forum InformatikerInnen für Frieden und gesellschaftliche Verantwortung e.V. Geschäftsstelle: Goetheplatz 4, D-28203 Bremen Telefon +49 421 33659255 - Fax +49 421 33659256 - http://www.fiff.de - fiff@fiff.de
participants (2)
-
Annette Muehlberg -
Stefan Hügel