[EURO-Discuss] [EURO-ALS] Voting Porcedure

Annette Muehlberg Annette.Muehlberg at web.de
Fri May 11 08:11:45 EDT 2007


Until a few days ago, we all thought that for the ALAC voting people would have two possible votes on three candidates.

Sebastian pointed out, that he was surprised of the change of voting procedure and did not see why this procedure should be applied on choosing two out of three. I was surprised too and I alos think that it makes more sense to keep the simple version of two possilbe votes for each ALS.

Best
Annette

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: nick.ashton-hart at icann.org, Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Gesendet: 11.05.07 13:18:27
> An: "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu>
> CC: Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Betreff: Re: [EURO-Discuss] [EURO-ALS] Voting Porcedure


> 
> Jeannette:
> 
> To be completely clear, this procedure was adopted in Lisbon on March
> 29th I believe, and this was posted for all ALSes to review
> immediately thereafter.
> 
> As a consequence, any ALS - or any person - could have queried this
> and a debate could have been had at any point in the last six weeks.
> There was no such debate and no questions raised - until now.
> 
> To reiterate my previous point: every decision reached by the
> community such as those in Lisbon cannot be re-opened because one or
> two decide, after a long interval, to question it.
> 
> The standard decision-making convention in international meetings and
> processes is that any decision validly taken may only be reconsidered
> if three-quarters of the decision-making body were to decide formally
> to reconsider the question. We do not see anything like that level of
> interest in doing so in this matter.
> 
> On 11/05/07, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
> > Dear Nick,
> >
> > Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:
> > > Verner, and all:
> > >
> > > Could we please, instead of trying to find things to object to, try
> > > and find things to agree on.
> > >
> > > To repeat: there is no difference in the outcome whether one ranks
> > > three candidates, or whether you dispose of two individual votes for a
> > > candidate of three.
> >
> > Usually, voting procedures do have strong effects on the outcome. This
> > is why they are an issue in almost every country. Think of the debates
> > on the advantages and disadvantages of majority systems and
> > prepresentattional systems.
> > I think this new procedural debate would stop instantly if you could
> > bring some proof that these two voting systems produce indeed the very
> > same results.
> > This is why asked whether we have some information on the results of
> > both systems.
> > thank you. jeanette
> >
> > >
> > > HOWEVER: insisting on changing everything because one or two
> > > individuals want to change what was agreed by a much larger group of
> > > ALSes in Lisbon is basically the same as suggesting that any one ALS
> > > can veto any decision reached by a much larger group of ALSes.
> > >
> > > This would result in nothing ever being achieved.
> > >
> > > On 11/05/07, W.Hülsmann (DVD e.V.) <huelsmann at datenschutzverein.de> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Hello,
> > >>
> > >>my first question:  "noon UTC" is 1 pm GMT?
> > >>
> > >>For the ALAC-Seats the rankingsystems makes for me no sense and it seems
> > >>to be not democratical for such a few seats to elecect. Therefor we
> > >>should use for the election of the ALAC-Seats tweo possible Votes for
> > >>each voter.
> > >>
> > >>Greatings,
> > >>
> > >>Werner
> > >>
> > >>Nick Ashton-Hart schrieb:
> > >>
> > >>>Verner:
> > >>>
> > >>>Thank you for your note. The first vote will be to decide whether or
> > >>>not the single ALS who is not a party to the MoU will be voting on the
> > >>>ALAC members and the board members.
> > >>>
> > >>>That vote will start today.
> > >>>
> > >>>With respect to the ranking system: This is what was decided in Lisbon
> > >>>as the procedure to be used, and so that procedure is carried forward
> > >>>to the actual vote. It is the same process that was strongly
> > >>>recommended with respect to the board seats, so on a practical level
> > >>>it makes sense to use only one type of voting on one ballot to reduce
> > >>>confusion.
> > >>>
> > >>>On 11/05/07, W.Hülsmann (DVD e.V.) <huelsmann at datenschutzverein.de>
> > >>>wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>Hello,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>on https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_elections_2007 I read:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>"VOTERS: The designated voters (1 per ALS) of ALSes who have signed the
> > >>>>Memorandum of Understanding with ICANN either in-person at the Lisbon
> > >>>>ICANN meeting or digitally via electronic mail - at any time before the
> > >>>>beginning of the voting"
> > >>>>
> > >>>>There must be a mistake: First of all we have to decide, if this "strong
> > >>>>recommendation" will be accepted.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Next: If there are two seats we have to vote for ALAC, then every voter
> > >>>>should have two possible votes. The two candidates with the most votes
> > >>>>will be elected. This is the democratical way of election. There ist no
> > >>>>need for such a ranking.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>After the election of the two members for the ALAC seats we have two
> > >>>>decide, how many seats shall the EURALO board have. The election of the
> > >>>>EURALO boad members can't start before we know how many board members
> > >>>>are to elect.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Kind Regarts,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>Werner Hülsmann
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>####################################################
> > >>Vorratsdatenspeicherung? Nein Danke!  -  Noch ist es
> > >>nicht zu spät: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de
> > >>####################################################
> > >>
> > >>--
> > >>
> > >>Dipl. Inform. Werner Hülsmann
> > >>Vorstandsmitglied der Deutschen Vereinigung für Datenschutz (DVD) e.V. Obere Laube 48 - D-78462 Konstanz
> > >>Tel.: 07531 / 365905-6 Mobil: 0179 / 46 86 484
> > >>E-Mail: huelsmann at datenschutzverein.dehttp://www.datenschutzverein.de
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>_______________________________________________
> > >>EURO-ALS mailing list
> > >>EURO-ALS at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-als_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Nick Ashton-Hart
> PO Box 32160
> London N4 2XY
> United Kingdom
> UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011
> USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
> Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135
> mobile: +44 (7774) 932798
> Win IM: ashtonhart at hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart at mac.com /
> Skype: nashtonhart
> Online Bio:   https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EURO-Discuss mailing list
> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
> 

-- 





More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list