[ALAC] Voting infrastructure rules

[Alan Greenberg]

What drafting team?

Alan

At 31/01/2013 02:31 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>Dear Alan,
>
>I agree with the rationale provided for by Dev. You stimulated interesting
>discussions and it is healthy to review the philosophy of the rules and why
>they are framed the way, they are.
>
>I also support Dev's recommendations for the Drafting Team.
>
>Kind Regards,
>Sala
>
>On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh 
><devtee at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Dear Alan,
> >
> > My preference is to keep 4 as is. (Only when the vote is ended, do we
> > (and observers) see how each person has voted.)
> >
> > I wonder what is the need of rules 1 to 3 for ALAC votes conducted
> > online. The duration of such votes is typically several days.
> >
> > Consider a scenario when an online ALAC vote is ongoing and the vote
> > is split with no clear outcome. Observers and ALAC members can see 6
> > persons voted no, 6 persons voted yes and by a process of elimination,
> > know which 3 ALAC members have yet to vote.
> >
> > Doesn't the potential exist where the 3 ALAC members yet to vote can
> > be contacted by other ALAC members or observers to influence their
> > vote?
> >
> > Perhaps to ensure the integrity of the voting process, rules 1 to 3
> > should be removed. This would mean no information during the voting
> > period is shown to ALAC members and observers.
> >
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Dev Anand Teelucksingh
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:42 AM, 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)
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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)
> >
>
>
>
>--
>Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>P.O. Box 17862
>Suva
>Fiji
>
>Twitter: @SalanietaT
>Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>Tel: +679 3544828
>Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>_______________________________________________
>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)