[ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules
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:)
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.
>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