ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [registrars] Motion to change Voting Ballots

  • To: "Jim Archer" <jarcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion to change Voting Ballots
  • From: "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:09:28 -0400
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcNH1t+xxYCzYYxVQ3eph99/0BKHUwACNL2w
  • Thread-topic: [registrars] Motion to change Voting Ballots

Friendly amendments are determined by the one making the motion.  As
that is technically me, however, and I was doing this on behalf of the
Ex.Com., I would confer with Ex.Com. on the nature of the amendment.

As for endorsements, there is no explicit rule, so I think I would look
to Bob C., whois is our Roberts' Rules expert.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Archer [mailto:jarcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 2:04 PM
To: Elana Broitman; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [registrars] Motion to change Voting Ballots

Elana, do friendly amendments require the approval of all those who 
endorsed it?  If not, can the endorsement be withdrawn?

--On Friday, July 11, 2003 1:50 PM -0400 Elana Broitman 
<ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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 Constituency  members (who have passwords to the boardrooms
> site) may view voting results. At the Montreal meeting, we discussed 
> several options for changing this process,  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 viewed 
> under one of the first 3 proposals.  We will determine that fact prior

> to the vote. Motion
> Consequently, there is a motion for moving to one of the following
> processes:
> 1. Post only the collective voting results, not individual results,
> 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   period.
> 4. Continue to post individual voting results, during the entire 
> voting  period.
> Process
> 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 procedures  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.
> Additional Information
> 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.

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