ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [registrars] Motion to change Voting Ballots

  • To: "Nikolaj Nyholm" <nikolajn@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion to change Voting Ballots
  • From: "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:12:19 -0400
  • Cc: <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcNH2mISQoyvBy3ETJqntN4wtifaMQABeQIg
  • Thread-topic: [registrars] Motion to change Voting Ballots

This is not yet a ballot, so can we take your email as an endorsement of
going from motion to ballot?


-----Original Message-----
From: Nikolaj Nyholm [mailto:nikolajn@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 2:30 PM
To: Elana Broitman; registrars@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion to change Voting Ballots

I am unsure whether we are endorsing a vote or a specific process. 
Nonetheless, Ascio would like to endorse a vote, in particular favoring
process number 3.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elana Broitman [mailto:ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 11. juli 2003 19:50
> To: registrars@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: [registrars] Motion to change Voting Ballots
> 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, 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 
>  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 >>>