AW: [registrars] Re: RESULTS: Restart of balloting on Domain Tasting, View 1 & View 2

["Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>]

As far as my understanding goes, this vote was only taken to give us
councilors a better understanding of the support each of the views has in
the constituency. There is absolutely no need for determining a
supermajority or analyzing the votes.

Best,

tom

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Tim Ruiz
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. Februar 2008 15:11
An: Robert F. Connelly
Cc: Registrars Constituency
Betreff: RE: [registrars] Re: RESULTS: Restart of balloting on Domain
Tasting, View 1 & View 2


Bob,

I appreciate the analysis, but I think you're unintentionally throwing out
votes. If I understand you correctly there were a total of 42 votes
cast/counted. Those in favor of View 1 were 24. That's 57.14% of the votes.
Even if you add those 4 who voted for both views into both, adjusting for
counting them as both, that's 28 in favor out of 46 votes or 60.87%.
Everyone's vote counts and should be part of the mearsurement.

Regardless of my personal view, I still believe there is no indication of a
supermajority for one view or the other.


Tim

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [registrars] Re: RESULTS: Restart of balloting on Domain Tasting,
View 1 & View 2
From: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, February 07, 2008 1:28 am
To: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

At 04:00 PM 2/6/2008 Wednesday  -0800, BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Dear Registrars and Observers:  I find there were only two members who
attempted to vote but were unable to do so.  Here are the adjustments.

First adjustment of total from 41 to 40.  This kind of discrepancy usually
results from an autoreply returning an unmarked ballot.

Second adjustment, one vote each for View 1 and View 2, as shown at end of
each detailed sub-total, below.  (masonc@snapnames for Vision 2,
registry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx for Vision1).

Results for Restart of balloting on Domain Tasting, View 1 & View 2 Number
of ballots received: 41-1=40

An HTML version of the result is available at
http://registrars.beach.net/votes/
Which view do you agree with?
    Agree with view 1  23
    Agree with view 2  7
    Agree with both views  4
    Do not agree with either view  3
    Abstain  3
With second adjustment:

    Agree with view 1  23+1=24
    Agree with view 2  7+1=8
    Agree with both views  4
    Do not agree with either view  3
    Abstain  3

Comparing View 1 and View 3, 24/32=0.75 or 75%, 8/32=0.25 or 25%.

>From here on it gets more difficult to analyze.  We are entering uncharted
waters.  We have never held a vote of this kind.

Considering the 4 agreeing with both and 3 agreeing with neither might have
the effect of increasing View 1 and View 2 by one vote each.

    Agree with view 1  23+1+1=25
    Agree with view 2  7+1+1=9
    Agree with both views  4
    Do not agree with either view  3
    Abstain  3

[There was an error in this calculation in the text sent to Voting Members.]

But what do we do with the abstains?  In a "Yes/No/Abstain" motion, we add
the abstains to the "No" total.

Using such a system, we might decrease View 1 and View 2 by 3 each:

    Agree with view 1  23+1+1-3=22
    Agree with view 2  7+1+1-3=6
    Abstain  3

Enough of these hypotheses.  Here are the rest of the data.  Sufficient to
say that View 1 (which View opposes Domain Tasting) had a strong majority
(supermajority?) over View 2 (which favours some forms of Domain Tasting).
The Main Motion stated that there was no "supermajority" for either
position.  In my opinion, the votes show that there is, indeed, a
supermajority which "dis-favors" Domain Tasting.


Voting Details

Which view do you agree with?
    Agree with view 1
        2  bobc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        22  bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        17  cpage@xxxxxxxxxxx
        21  donny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        67  ebw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        34  helen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        8  henning.grote@xxxxxxxxx
        3  john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        27  joyce@xxxxxxxxx
        52  legner@xxxxxxxxx
        56  marcus.faure@xxxxxxxxxxx
        46  mark.klein@xxxxxxxx
        7  mdierstein@xxxxxxxxxxx
        43  michel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        26  nicrelations@xxxxxxxxx
        28  paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx
        66  rc@xxxxxxxxxx
        61  stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx
        19  tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
        45  tom@xxxxxxxx
        54  tsmeets@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        64  violetta.nafpaktiti@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        31  yoav@xxxxxxxx
        Total for Agree with view 1: 23        Plus
registry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Adjusted total view 1:         24



    Agree with view 2
        38  adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        23  bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxx
        39  jcvignes@xxxxxxxxxxx
        65  moshef@xxxxxxxxxxx
        44  russ@xxxxxxxxxx
        42  seth@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        1  tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx
        Total for Agree with view 2: 7        Plus masonc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Adjusted total view 2:       8



    Agree with both views
        20  as@xxxxxxx
        62  henrik.erkkonen@xxxxxxxxxxx
        11  hinojosa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        37  tmurphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Total for Agree with both views: 4

    Do not agree with either view
        25  bill@xxxxxxxx
        53  jleg@xxxxxxx
        60  paul.stahura@xxxxxxxx
        Total for Do not agree with either view: 3

    Abstain
        4  jeckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxx
        16  jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
        10  rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Total for Abstain: 3