Re: [EURO-Discuss] [EURO-ALS] Voting Porcedure
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. 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
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...
Hello Nick, there is a difference if all voters have two possible votes or if the voters have to rank all three candidates. If I have two possible votes, I can also vote only for one candidate and let my secend vote unused. Kind Regards, Werner Nick Ashton-Hart schrieb:
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.
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:
#################################################### 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
Hi Werner You can also refuse to rank more than one candidate. But I would like to suggest that given that EURALO in the beginning seemed to be a very organized and active RALO-to-be, in the 6 weeks since Lisbon, the group has descended into what appears to be circular and non-productive discussion. A vote is a good way to end the discussion as positions seem to have solidified, and no one is really going to change their mind much. But now there's the discussion about the voting process. From my recollection, this was already debated for a very long time at the EURALO meetings in Lisbon, and a decision was made. Are the people objecting to the process now people who were NOT at the Lisbon meeting, either in person or via telephone, and who did NOT have an opportunity to read the minutes and documents produced from those meetings in the 6 weeks since then? Because otherwise, I would suggest that everyone has had sufficient time to acquaint themselves with the process as agreed by the representatives in Lisbon, and the candidates, and you should go ahead and vote for the Board, so that the RALO can be properly constituted. Once that is done, other questions of the process to be followed for voting in the future etc can be dealt with by the EURALO and its Board and membership. The decisions made by the group in Lisbon can be rescinded, by a process to be determined by the EURALO, and new processes put into place. But until you vote and finally form the EURALO, you are discussing something that does not yet properly exist - or can it exist without Board and other corporate positions? However if you delay, you are running the risk that the EURALO representatives will not be chosen in time to represent your region at the San Juan meeting, at which ALAC has some important decisions to make, and we need you to be a part. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: "W.Hülsmann (DVD e.V.)" [mailto:huelsmann@datenschutzverein.de] Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 12:39 PM To: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Cc: euro-als@atlarge-lists.icann.org; Discussion for At-Large Europe Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] [EURO-ALS] Voting Porcedure Hello Nick, there is a difference if all voters have two possible votes or if the voters have to rank all three candidates. If I have two possible votes, I can also vote only for one candidate and let my secend vote unused. Kind Regards, Werner Nick Ashton-Hart schrieb:
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.
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:
#################################################### 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-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.i cann.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.8/797 - Release Date: 5/10/2007 5:10 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.8/797 - Release Date: 5/10/2007 5:10 PM
Hello, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
You can also refuse to rank more than one candidate.
Definitly NO: On https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_elections_2007 is written: "The ballot will work as follows: 1. Each voter will rank, in order of preference, ALL the ALAC candidates." with "ALL" in Capital Letters. Kind Regards, Werner #################################################### 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
participants (4)
-
"W.Hülsmann (DVD e.V.)" -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Jeanette Hofmann -
Nick Ashton-Hart