[EURO-Discuss] PROBLEM: VOTE CREDENTIALS: EURALO Secretariat
d.h.kalkman at isoc.nl
Fri Jun 28 07:46:47 UTC 2013
I can not find this strange decision the (interesting) minutes of the
board meeting. The discussion ended with "Wolf Ludwig: Simple repetition
of the previous vote, same candidates, no new nominations, same voters."
Nothing about new procedures a.s.o.
Two additional points:
1. Refraining from casting is not the same as a blank or none vote.
2. My testing of the voting procedures and voting system may not be
confused and/or framed with my voting preference.
So, the voting problems are not transparently based on bylaws and/or a
GA decision and/or a board decision and/or international recognized and
accepted voting principles.
Yes, you can indeed reduce options to come up with a clear result on the
candidates, but that means that you limit the number of candidates. You
don't violate international recognized and accepted voting principles!
It's an upside world if you adopt voting rights and a voting system to
optically compensate for failing bylaws (or failing bylaw interpretations).
On this base the voting system and the voting results can not be
supported and accepted.
For the best of EURALO I prefer a quick, clear and acceptable
operational solution by correcting and restarting the bigpulse voting by
adding the none option.
Just apply the common rule that in the second round the candidate with
the most votes wins.
President Internet Society The Netherlands
ISOC The Netherlands Chapter
E: d.h.kalkman at isoc.nl
A: Prins Willem-Alexanderhof 5
2595 BE Den Haag
On 28-6-2013 3:04, Wolf Ludwig wrote:
> Dear Dick,
> thanks for your observations and remarks. We have discussed the need for a 2nd voting round and the set-up of the voting tool last Thursday night at our extraordinary Board meeting in Lisbon and afterwards. One of the conclusions was:
> We offered more - incl. NoA or sort of Abstain - in the first round what broad tight results without clear majorities (or where the most votes (11) was countered by 8 + 8 = 16 what indicates that 11 was not a majority vote out of 27, as prescribed in the Bylaws (art. 11.20).
> In a 2nd run-off voting round (Stichwahl) you usually reduce options to come up with a clear result on the candidates and not to face a similar dilemma as in the first round. That's why the Bigpulse voting tool was designed like this = to enable a clear voting result.
> Some people mentioned/argued already, if they still don't want to make a choice between the two candidates, the only option would be to refrain from casting their vote in the 2nd round -- what is considered by a few TMK and has to be taken into account when At-Large Staff will check the number of total voters who casted their vote compared to those who received an invitation plus credentials for the vote. Perhaps this may be an option for you as well?
> But I still hope that we will have a clear voting result by tomorrow night. Thanks for your understanding and
> best regards,
> Dick Kalkman wrote Fri, 28 Jun 2013 02:09
>> Dear All,
>> Before I tried to vote for the EURALO Secretariat I made some observations.
>> >From my background I always review and test voting systems. Reviewing
>> and testing the voting system I now have to suspect a problem with the
>> voting procedures and/or system. To explain the problem the following:
>> The (concept) minutes of the last GA regarding the voting for the
>> secretariat contains:
>> Secret votes: 27 votes in total, proxies included, one missing due to
>> delayed arrival at the meeting.
>> Ms. Yuliya Morenets: 8 votes
>> Ms. Oksana Prykhodko: 11 votes
>> None of the above: 8 votes
>> So voting was possible for Yuliya, Oksana or None.
>> However the Bigpuls voting system said:
>> Please select one of the two candidates below, listed in alphabetical
>> order, for the position of EURALO Secretariat for the term of from the
>> EURALO GA 2013 to the EURALO GA 2015:
>> * Yuliya Morenets
>> * Oksana Prykhodko
>> Select one checkbox
>> Yuliya Morenets
>> Oksana Prykhodko
>> So voting is possible for Yuliya, Oksana but NOT for None.
>> This leads to the conclusion that this election process is inconsistent
>> with the last week election at the GA.
>> To be sure that this option is really really missing (some voting
>> systems are no so well documented) I did a test. I didn't select any
>> checkbook and hit "Submit vote". And indeed, the system responded:
>> Error: check your submission
>> EURALO Secretariat
>> You must select at least one choice in this poll.
>> My first impression is that one voting option ("none") is missing. At
>> least this is confusing and leads to the question why is this
>> implemented this way?
>> Best Regards,
>> Dick Kalkman
>> On 27-6-2013 5:00, At-Large Staff wrote:
>>> Dear Dick,
>>> Please note that the poll for the position of EURALO Secretariat has now
>>> Question: Please select one of the two candidates below, listed in
>>> alphabetical order, for the position of EURALO Secretariat for the term
>>> of from the EURALO GA 2013 to the EURALO GA 2015:
>>> * Yuliya Morenets
>>> * Oksana Prykhodko
>>> Please note that the poll will be open from *_24_**-**June**-2013 23:59
>>> UTC* to *_28_**-June-2013 **_23:59_** UTC*.
>> <DELETED PART>
>>> Important Security Warning: Do not forward this email because it
>>> contains an auto-signin link.
>> <DELETED PART>
>>> Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie
>>> Peregrine and Julia Charvolen
>>> ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC
>>> E-mail: staff at atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff at atlarge.icann.org>
>> EURO-Discuss mailing list
>> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
> EuroDIG Secretariat
> mobile +41 79 204 83 87
> Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
> EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
> Profile on LinkedIn
More information about the EURO-Discuss