[registrars] Ballot Procedure Discussion
- To: "Robert F. Connelly" <rconnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Registrar Constituency" <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [registrars] Ballot Procedure Discussion
- From: "Michael D. Palage" <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 13:35:04 -0400
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
A couple of comments.
First, the constituency has always been about accountability. When
registrars can hide in anonymity on ballots that to me is not a step in the
right direction. Moreover, it might subject the ExCom to litigation and
discover requests to see how members voted. I believe the Pool.com recent
lawsuit filed this past week in conjunction with the WLS is a case in point,
as well as my own experience during the VeriSign contract renegotiations in
Melbourne in 2000. That being said, the experience of the last couple of
ballots where members were getting inundated with calls, sometime with
candidates getting people to try to change their vote, was not a positive
development. Therefore, I believe Option #3 is the best.
With regard for the need to obtain a neutral third party to conduct the
ballot, I would like to offer the following solution which costs nothing and
has built in accountability.
It is possible with the Boardroom account to create multiple accounts. I
would recommend creating a Superuser Admin Account that the entire ExCom
would have access to - same user ID & Password. This superuser account would
then be used to create/initiate the ballot. The Boardroom account also has a
feature to track user activity and is available to all administrator
accounts which I think all ExCom should have. With this feature the ExCom
could track user activity to see if the SuperUser account was ever accessed
during the pendancy of the vote. Thus there is a built in safety mechanism
to prevent the ExCom from peeking in on the results during the voting
process. Rick could you please verify the functionality of the software.
Just some constructive comments that people may find useful.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly
> Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 12:48 PM
> To: Registrar Constituency
> Subject: [registrars] Discussion stage for balloting procedures, in
> advance of voting on this issue.
> Dear Registrars: I have been directed to initiate the 14 day
> discussion on
> this issue:
> VOTING BALLOT
> Explanation: A number of registrars had expressed a wish for anonymous
> voting in order to protect Constituency members and potentially
> foster greater
> voter participation. The current voting process posts each Constituency
> member's vote as soon as such member votes. Please note that only
> members (who have passwords to the boardrooms site) may view
> voting results.
> At the Montreal meeting, we discussed several options for changing this
> including a change to post only the collective results rather than
> individual votes.
> On the list there was a question about whether or not abstentions may be
> under one of the first 3 proposals. We will determine that fact prior to
> the vote.
> Consequently, there is a motion for moving to one of the
> following processes:
> 1. Post only the collective voting results, not individual
> results, and only
> at the conclusion of the voting period.
> 2. Post only the collective voting results, not individual
> results, during
> the entire voting period.
> 3. Post individual voting results, but only at the conclusion
> of the voting
> 4. Continue to post individual voting results, during the entire voting
> Pursuant to the Constituency Rules of Procedure, this motion
> needs to have 5
> endorsements, and will be put to a vote under the current voting
> after a 14-day discussion period. Friendly amendments will be
> accepted and
> such changes made to the ballot. Unfriendly amendments will receive a
> separate ballot.
> In addition to making this change, there was discussion at the Montreal
> meeting about whether or not the Executive Committee should continue to
> manage the voting process. Apparently, the only way that it is
> possible to
> conduct votes through the boardrooms.org site is for the manager of the
> process (Ex.Com.) to have access to individual votes. While we
> do not intend
> to use such access, the Constituency may wish to delegate this
> task to a third
> party that is not a member of the Constituency. However, as that
> would entail
> delegation of all boardrooms.org management functions, including
> membership rolls, passwords, etc., it may be a broader change than
> anticipated, require hiring of a secretary, and/or switching to
> an alternative
> online service. We plan to investigate the options and bring them to the
> Constituency for consideration in short order. In the meantime,
> however, with
> important votes coming up for the Constituency, we did not want to hold up
> the consideration of a change in vote posting.
> end quote:
> Please discuss only this issue with the present Subject thread.
> Regards, BobC