Motion to amend voting procedures.
Dear Members: During July of 2003, we voted on possible changes in balloting procedures. Here were the results of that ballot: VOTING BALLOT 01 Aug 2003 Post only the collective voting results, not individual results, and only at the conclusion of the voting period 21% Post only the collective voting results, not individual results, during the entire voting period 7% Post individual voting results, but only at the conclusion of the voting period. 24% Continue to post individual voting results, during the entire voting period. 48% More than half of our members voted *against* having the voting results during the voting period. However, I have been directed to make them available for the present ballot for our new Chair. MOTION: I hereby move that we have a runoff election between the two proposals with the highest percentage of the prior vote, specifically: 1. Post individual voting results, but only at the conclusion of the voting period. 2. Continue to post individual voting results, during the entire voting period. end quote: I seek five other Members to endorse this motion. Here is the section of the Registrars Constituency Rules of Procedure dealing with endorsements to a motion: 2. Proponent must have five endorsements in order to file the motion. Such filing is accomplished by sending the motion and list of endorsements by electronic means to the Constituency's Secretary. end quote: As I see it, any Member may offer an endorsement. Memberships are held by ICANN Accredited Registrars who are also Members of the Constituency. In other words, the endorsing *person* need not be the voting member. Nonetheless, only one endorsement should be accepted from any Member Registrar. I look forward to many happy endorsements:-) Respectfully submitted by: Robert Connelly, in my individual capacity as a representative of PSI-Japan, a Member of the Constituency.
Siegfried Langenbach second that motion. On 22 Sep 2004 at 7:23, Bob Connelly wrote: Date sent: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:23:51 -0700 To: Registrars Constituency <registrars@dnso.org> From: Bob Connelly <rconnell@psi-japan.com> Subject: [registrars] Motion to amend voting procedures. [...]
MOTION: I hereby move that we have a runoff election between the two proposals with the highest percentage of the prior vote, specifically:
1. Post individual voting results, but only at the conclusion of the voting period. 2. Continue to post individual voting results, during the entire voting period.
end quote:
In the mean time, we need to abide by the current vote. The current ballot is not within our rules, and therefore, the results of any such election would be invalid. Frankly, I am a little annoyed that we just finished modifying the ballot, and still did not get it right. Rob. -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org]On Behalf Of Siegfried Langenbach Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 10:55 AM To: Registrars Constituency; Bob Connelly Subject: Re: [registrars] Motion to amend voting procedures. Siegfried Langenbach second that motion. On 22 Sep 2004 at 7:23, Bob Connelly wrote: Date sent: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:23:51 -0700 To: Registrars Constituency <registrars@dnso.org> From: Bob Connelly <rconnell@psi-japan.com> Subject: [registrars] Motion to amend voting procedures. [...]
MOTION: I hereby move that we have a runoff election between the two proposals
with
the highest percentage of the prior vote, specifically:
1. Post individual voting results, but only at the conclusion of the voting period. 2. Continue to post individual voting results, during the entire voting period.
end quote:
At 09:09 AM 9/22/04, Rob Hall wrote:
The current ballot is not within our rules, and therefore, the results of any such election would be invalid. Frankly, I am a little annoyed that we just finished modifying the ballot, and still did not get it right.
Dear Rob: I'm confused, are you seconding my motion? What do you see that is wrong? Regards, BobC
Bob, There are no "two proposals" of anything. The July 03 ballot did not change RC ballot process. Historically, the authors of three motions that appeared on that ballot might have been smarter and eliminated two of the motions so as to change the RC ballot process. Your proposed ballot is misleading and should read simply "Bob wants to change the RC ballot process", some details you think support your desire, and the existing and your proposed texts of the controlling RC document. I want every position of NSI (NASDEQ:NSOL), Register (NASDEQ:RCOM), TUCOWS (NASDEC:TCOW), ... on every issue of substance that provides "input", no matter how illusory the fiction of "input to the ICANN process" is, to be open and on the RC record. This is a body constituted under ICANN's original "constituency" model, nominally affecting the regulation of all issues that come before the board of directors of a 501(c)(3) domiciled in California. This isn't a small town in Vermont where the bars are closed on the first Tuesday in November, and no one talks about politics on Sunday, candidates are too dignified to try and pursuade voters and no one breaks the law. At this point, if Tim wants to ask someone to share the work of the ExCom, that beats having a broken election. Eric
At 02:03 AM 9/23/04, Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine wrote:
At this point, if Tim wants to ask someone to share the work of the ExCom, that beats having a broken election.
Dear Eric: It ain't broke -- and Bhavin's name is even spelled correctly now;-) Personal regards, BobC
Eric, The ballot for this election has been amended yesterday so that full details are visible and members may change their vote. Bob's motion is to the get the ball rolling on a separate issue that will be dealt with by a separate vote if the required number of endorsements is received. This motion does not break the current election of a new Chair. Tim -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 4:04 AM To: Bob Connelly Cc: Registrars Constituency; brunner@nic-naa.net Subject: Re: [registrars] Motion to amend voting procedures. Bob, There are no "two proposals" of anything. The July 03 ballot did not change RC ballot process. Historically, the authors of three motions that appeared on that ballot might have been smarter and eliminated two of the motions so as to change the RC ballot process. Your proposed ballot is misleading and should read simply "Bob wants to change the RC ballot process", some details you think support your desire, and the existing and your proposed texts of the controlling RC document. I want every position of NSI (NASDEQ:NSOL), Register (NASDEQ:RCOM), TUCOWS (NASDEC:TCOW), ... on every issue of substance that provides "input", no matter how illusory the fiction of "input to the ICANN process" is, to be open and on the RC record. This is a body constituted under ICANN's original "constituency" model, nominally affecting the regulation of all issues that come before the board of directors of a 501(c)(3) domiciled in California. This isn't a small town in Vermont where the bars are closed on the first Tuesday in November, and no one talks about politics on Sunday, candidates are too dignified to try and pursuade voters and no one breaks the law. At this point, if Tim wants to ask someone to share the work of the ExCom, that beats having a broken election. Eric
Tim,
This motion does not break the current election of a new Chair.
What makes this election unusual is that the rules under which it has been conducted have varied during the ballot period, and the oddity of an ExCom member who is conducting the ballot engage in advocacy on the process of balloting. So, how do you know, and how does Bob know, that the election hasn't been broken? By recourse to your private intuition? By a bit of text in the ByLaws or Rules that say that the process of a ballot may be altered arbitrarily during the ballot? By the positive expression of a preponderence of the membership? Let me know. I'd appreciate the ByLaws or Rules cite that makes the ballot process so amazingly flexible. Eric
participants (5)
-
Bob Connelly -
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine -
Rob Hall -
Siegfried Langenbach -
Tim Ruiz