<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] SECOND ROUND BALLOT
- To: kent@xxxxxxxxx, council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [council] SECOND ROUND BALLOT
- From: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 18:05:24 -0400
- In-reply-to: <20060621215757.GD9465@raven.songbird.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
<P>:-) </P>
<P>as I said, Kent, this is not about your support. You know I have a lot of respect
for you. thanks for your extensive response.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Marilyn<BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #a0c6e5 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT:
0px"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; FONT-FAMILY: tahoma,sans-serif">
<HR color=#a0c6e5 SIZE=1>
<DIV></DIV>From: <I>"'kent crispin'" <kent@xxxxxxxxx></I><BR>To: <I>GNSO Council <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx></I><BR>Subject: <I>Re: [council] SECOND ROUND BALLOT</I><BR>Date: <I>Wed, 21 Jun 2006 14:57:57 -0700</I><BR>><BR>>Hi Marilyn<BR>><BR>>On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 07:51:11PM +0000, Marilyn Cade wrote:<BR>> > This response is not directed at technical staff. However, this situation<BR>> > with voting is a little strange.<BR>><BR>>I have run many elections, and from my perspective there was nothing unusual<BR>>about this one. It's part of an extended history of email elections in the<BR>>ICANN environment, and details, including the use and hazards of email to<BR>>distribute ballots, have hashed out in excruciating detail long beforehand.<BR>>The procedures for this
election were posted at<BR>><BR>> http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-01jun06.htm.<BR>><BR>>The nature of email is well-known to everyone concerned. In particular, it<BR>>is well-known that, like physical mail, email can be lost or delayed. We<BR>>handle that contingency by 1) allowing a full week for balloting, 2)<BR>>providing an alternate web-based interface, and 3) resending ballots whenever<BR>>there is a request. In extreme cases (documented in the procedures) votes<BR>>can be collected via personal contact with the Secretariat.<BR>><BR>>Implicit in this arrangement is that people who want to vote are responsible<BR>>for their mailboxes. We can't control peoples spam filters, or their<BR>>accidental deletions, or their ISP's servers, or simply not noticing
the<BR>>email message in their box.<BR>><BR>> > Three people did not receive ballots,<BR>><BR>>It was sometimes necessary to resend, but in fact, there was only one person<BR>>who did not ultimately receive a ballot, and, to my knowledge, that person<BR>>did not request another until after the election was over. Everyone else not<BR>>only received a ballot, but voted.<BR>><BR>> > although technical staff validate the sending of ballots and receipt but not<BR>> > in the mailbox of the intended recipient.<BR>><BR>>Delivery is verified to the extent it is technically possible. Once mail is<BR>>delivered to the remote server it is out of our hands, and it becomes the<BR>>responsibility of the recipient. We cannot examine the recipients mailbox<BR>>(most people would think that was a good thing
:-)).<BR>><BR>> > I ask that the election "team" work out a way to allow all councilors to vote.<BR>> > We have documented complaints about the flow and receipt of ballots.<BR>> ><BR>> > This needs to be addressed by the General counsel, and adm staff<BR>> > responsible for managing the election, and a process addressed for councilors<BR>> > who did not receive the ballots but stated their intention to vote.<BR>> ><BR>> > Let's not have a contested election over technical failures.<BR>><BR>> >From my perspective, there have been no reports of anything remotely<BR>>resembling either a technical failure or a process failure.<BR>><BR>> > I voted in the first round and have a "sent" message in my email outbox.<BR>> > Yet when I asked for verification of receipt, my vote was not received.<BR>> > The second
round seems to have worked for me.<BR>><BR>>Recall that email is an imperfect medium. In fact, your first round vote was<BR>>ultimately received, and your vote was counted.<BR>><BR>>It is up to others to decide, of course, but from my perspective this was a<BR>>perfectly reasonable election.<BR>><BR>>Best Regards<BR>>Kent<BR>><BR>>--<BR>>Kent Crispin<BR>>kent@xxxxxxxxx p: +1 310 823 9358 f: +1 310 823 8649<BR>><BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></div></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|