[ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules

sandra hoferichter info at hoferichter.eu
Fri Feb 1 18:38:09 UTC 2013

Hi all, following the discussion I like to provide you with my POV:

Free and secret votes  (or elections) have especially a high value for some
countries where this was not always / is not granted. I am not saying that
this has not a high value in all countries of the world. 

In east Germany (where I come from) and other post soviet countries people
were fighting for it 20 years ago, some still do. That could be a reason,
why people feel uncomfortable with changing the current rules. Most votes
are done online not during the meeting, so in most cases the anonymity which
is regulated in #4 is provided, F2F votes are more rare. 

I feel there is a majority for keeping the current rule, but if we are
uncertain we can do a vote on this:)

Best Sandra

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:alac-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Alan Greenberg
Gesendet: Freitag, 1. Februar 2013 17:12
An: Evan Leibovitch; ICANN ALAC list
Betreff: Re: [ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules

Thanks everyone. My sense if that there is a strong inclination to 
leave the rules exactly as they were. That has the benefit of us not 
actually having to do anything, which is always a plus.

I must admit I was a bit surprised by the level of contributions on 
something that I saw as a matter of making information available as 
soon as possible unless there was a strong reason for withholding (as 
we expect of others in ICANN). But disagreement and debate is 
healthy, and I have no problem with the outcome.

I do support Evan's dream of seeing this level of debate on the 
policy issues that we are here to address.


At 01/02/2013 10:09 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>My latest (and hopefully final) observations:
>    - I am swayed by those who prefer the original wording of #4.
>    - The "independence" rationale against changing #4 is without merit
>    insulting to the integrity of the voters), though other valid 
> reasons exist
>    - In a "votes are visible throughout the poll" scheme, more weight of
>    influence may be unduly given to those who vote fastest with an intent
>    sway. Mid-poll is not the time to be trying to influence one's peers,
>    should be done in pre-vote debate. Indeed the most compelling argument
>    against changing #4 is that it would further reduce the motivation for
>    pre-vote discussion and issue awareness. As it is, we already are
>    challenged in this regard
>    - If I feel weak on an issue and want to know the opinion of trusted
>    colleagues, I can do that privately and/or before the vote starts. I
>    need to see how they vote during the poll. Better still, there should
>    open debate where I can hear from everyone on not just how they intend
>    vote, but why.
>    - Transparency and accountability requirements are sufficiently
>    fulfilled by posting who-voted-how after the results are final (which
>    what the original #4 already mandates)
>    - In a weak moment, I dream that the level and quality of debate given
>    to this process issue matter might perhaps extend to our policy issues.
>- Evan
>ALAC mailing list
>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 

ALAC mailing list
ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki:

More information about the ALAC mailing list