[ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules

[Carlton Samuels]

Alan, my hit to the nail was intentional; I hardly ever commit to paper
without that pre-condition.

Maybe it was too nuanced but the point I wanted to come across is we all
have different operational modes.....and even someone like me who thinks -
and sells it - for a living have my influences...and people who influence
me could be the bane of another's existence.  :-)

-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Alan Greenberg
<alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:

>  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 <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
>  ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>  https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
>