[EURO-Discuss] [EURO-ALS] Voting Porcedure
Stefan Hügel
sh at fiff.de
Fri May 11 09:41:24 EDT 2007
Dear colleagues,
again I agree with Annettes point of view - to me the actual voting
procedure was not clear until yesterday - and doesn't seem I am the
only one.
And as it does make a difference which voting system to choose -
Jeannette pointed that out.
So I also have strong objections against the ranking procedure and
propose two votes for each ALS.
Best
Stefan
Am 11.05.2007 um 14:11 schrieb Annette Muehlberg:
> 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
>>
>
> --
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EURO-Discuss mailing list
> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-
> discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
--
Stefan Hügel (sh at fiff.de)
FIfF - Forum InformatikerInnen für Frieden und gesellschaftliche
Verantwortung e.V.
Geschäftsstelle: Goetheplatz 4, D-28203 Bremen
Telefon +49 421 33659255 - Fax +49 421 33659256 - http://www.fiff.de
- fiff at fiff.de
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org/attachments/20070511/fa0dbb11/attachment-0001.html
More information about the EURO-Discuss
mailing list