[ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules

[Alan Greenberg]

Carlton, I guess you have hit the nail on the head (so to speak) with 
regard to my proposing the change. But perhaps you did not do so intentionally.

In an ideal world, everyone does their homework thoroughly and will 
vote their conscience.

In the real world, not everyone does so, but typically do not 
withhold their vote or abstain, but either vote randomly (ie 
rock/paper/scissors) or simply vote yes because that is the path of 
least resistance. I would prefer that they follow the lead of someone 
they trust instead of taking those other paths.

Sadly, on many issues, there is not a lot of debate, and not being 
"in the room", it is difficult to sense the mood, if there is one.

In any case, we will see where the general trend of ALAC feelings 
lies and proceed accordingly.

Alan

At 31/01/2013 11:20 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>IMO, it don't amount to a hill o' beans; leaving #4 as is works just 
>as well as changing it.
>
>I confess there is just 1 issue that my vote can be influenced 
>purely by the vote of another person; IDNs and, by design.  The fact 
>is I've hardly invested the brain cells or time on that issue.  So 
>without apology, I form an opinion by taking into consideration the 
>positions of the acknowledged experts.  The caveat is I have to 
>trust them to align my vote.
>
>Here's the thing. Generally speaking, if I have been paying 
>attention to the debate and the 'mood of the room', I wouldn't have 
>to wait to see how others vote to be influenced.  Hell, might as 
>well do a 'rock, scissors, paper' at that point and be gone!
>
>-Carlton
>
>==============================
>Carlton A Samuels
>Mobile: 876-818-1799
>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
>=============================
>
>
>On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 11:42 PM, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>Currently we have in place a set of rules (approved by the ALAC in
>June 2009) on how votes are to be conducted (that is votes that are
>not in reference to named individuals).
>
>Those rules are:
>
>1.  As the vote is proceeding, we can see how many people have voted.
>2.  As the vote is proceeding, we can see who has voted.
>3.  As the vote is proceeding, we can see a tally of how the votes
>have been cast.
>4.  When the vote is ended, we can see how each person has voted.
>5.  The order of the options should not change as the vote proceeds.
>6.  Outsiders who cannot vote can look at all of the above interim results.
>
>Rule 4 was there because previously, we had on some occasions used a
>BigPulse option to order the options so that the winning one was
>first. The rules were debated and approved because at the time, we
>seemd to used a semi-random set of voting parameters for each vote.
>
>Based on the last few votes, we seem to be back at the state of
>semi-random variations in each vote (the current ALS approval vote
>does not allow a voter to see who has already voted, the recent votes
>on ALAC statements on Thickwhois and IGO/INGO questions did allow
>viewing the list of those who had voted).
>
>Since we are in the process of cleaning up the overall ALAC rules, it
>makes sense to revisit this one prior to having staff adjust
>procedures to ensure that our rules are being met.
>
>So I ask whether these are the rules we want or if changes need to be made.
>
>I would suggest one change. Since these rules were created to have a
>similar effect as a face-to-face vote with all parties and observers
>in the same room, I would suggest the replacement of 4 with:
>
>4. As the vote is proceeding, we can see how voted have voted.
>
>This was considered last time, but was not used due to a fear that
>seeing how people vote could influence later votes. My thoughts are
>that this is exactly what happens in a face-to-face vote and should
>not change because we are voting electronically.
>
>Does anyone have any thoughts on this. Specifically:
>
>A) Should we keep the current rules?
>B) Should we replace 4. as suggested?
>C) Any other changes you believe we should make?
>
>We regularly demand transparency of other parts of ICANN and
>particularly the Board. I think that we should use the same standard
>for ourselves.
>
>Alan
>
>_______________________________________________
>ALAC mailing list
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>