RE: AW: [council] Enfranchising absent voters

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I like what Chuck is proposing, or trying to accomplish. In the short
time I've been on the Council I have already been chastized once by my
constituents (and rightfully so). However, I would prefer not to make
the proposed change and keep the process as simple as possible. Let's
get Board approval and solve the major issue for now. We can consider
tweaking later if necessary.


Tim


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: AW: [council] Enfranchising absent voters
From: "Thomas Keller" <tom@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, January 18, 2008 6:42 am
To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri@xxxxxxx>, "'Council GNSO'"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



I guess I would rather like to vote whether to initiate a vote or not ;)
instead of this very complicated setup which will cause alot of
confusion.

tom

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Im
Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Januar 2008 10:08
An: Council GNSO
Betreff: Re: [council] Enfranchising absent voters


Hi,

While anything can be gamed, including absenting oneself right before
the
vote, I believe that the text is better as it stands.

I tried to think of a couple of ways of tightening it, e.g.

- absent as of the time the role call is taken - but people arrive late,
and
some have to leave early
- absent when the agenda item first comes under discussion, but this is
still subject to the condition above and, the person who can game it by
leaving just before the vote cold also game it by leaving just before
the
discussion. which is a sense is even more counter productive.

and while it is true that people could game it, by coming to fewer
meetings
or by always leaving just before a critical vote, I think that this sort
of
behavior would:

a. be unlikely in anyone wiling to serve on the council b. be noticed in
such a way that some one would eventually take action

I think Philip's point in the his PS. is well taken, by and large,
whenever
someone has said, I need more time, or I need to consult, we have
delayed
the vote until the next meeting.

a.


On 18 Jan 2008, at 09:49, Philip Sheppard wrote:

>
>
> I argued against this new change in the group as it gets too complex.
> It would mean a council member chooses to vote then or later.
> But would only vote later if the trigger for an e-vote that the
> outcome may be affected applies.
> But that choice itself (to vote later or not) itself may affect the
> trigger.
> This means the vote is open to gaming and the choice is thus
> unethical.
>
> Moreover, presenting such a complex proposal to the Board would likely
> kill it.
>
> Philip
>
> PS Our current practise is to delay a vote until we are all ready, so
> the benefit of the addition seems to be small in comparison to the
> cost in complexity / ethics.
>
>