ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>