<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[nc-budget] Fwd: RE: [council] Time table and problems with voting during travel
Hi to all:
As Elisabeth has described in this e-mail, sometimes
it is necesary to hire telephone facilities for
voting.
I understand that this time will be less difficult
since it is only one ICANN member to select.
I suggest the Budget Comittee asks to Elisabeth if
DNSO will be charged for having such facilities she
described in her message below, available.
If yes, then I think that we must search alternatives
that may satisfy all Names Council member schedules
that doesn't need to make extra expenses.
Best Regards
Vany
:-)
--- Elisabeth Porteneuve
<Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr> wrote:
>
> Tony, Marilyn,
> NC Colleagues,
>
> The NC vote to elect ICANN Board Directors was
> considered of
> utmost importance since the origin of the DNSO and
> myself I
> took the necessary steps to be sure the Secretariat
> is able
> to face all possible difficulties in an adequate and
> responsible
> manner.
>
> The voting mechanism (Convention Style) request for
> presence
> of 21 NC Members, scattered all over the world, for
> few consecutive
> days for a real time secret electronic vote. With
> those constraints,
> the probability is very high that several NC Members
> will need
> proxies during vote.
> Past experience indicates that some NC Members may
> be traveling
> during the vote and still willing to vote by
> themselves, but sometimes
> without an access to the e-mail system. It also
> happen in 1999 that
> one of voting persons was traveling to a country
> without an easy
> telephone access, and the Secretariat had to call a
> hotel in
> Beijing and ask for a room number provided by a
> third party.
>
> As you see, the spectra of possible cases is large.
>
> To answer all those situations it is not only
> necessary
> to grant proxies, but also to allow for votes by
> telephone.
>
> In August 1999 the Secretariat installed three
> telephone lines
> dedicated to vote, all with full international
> access, one of
> them outside of the PABX (as a backup in case of
> PABX failure,
> no matter how small probability it may have). The
> subscription was
> taken at Genesys for a private teleconference
> system, with a
> dedicated telephone number allowing the Secretariat
> to set up
> a teleconference on the fly, should that necessity
> arise (it did
> in 1999, we had a glitch in the election of the
> third director).
>
> With regard to the vote by e-mail: the established
> rule is that
> any NC Member may request for one or two proxies.
> Then, during
> the vote electronic ballots are sent to all NC
> Members and to
> their proxies (proxy information is indicated on
> ballot).
> The proxies answers are taken into account if and
> only if a
> NC Member cannot vote by himself.
>
> With regard to the vote by telephone: if a NC Member
> wishes to cast
> a vote by himself, he may call the Secretariat or
> may request the
> Secretariat to call him. Over the phone call, the
> Secretariat
> will recognize the voice of calling person (we hope
> so), then get
> the NC vote, and subsequently generate an electronic
> backup ballot
> for that person.
>
> The NC Members have been receiving recently the
> telephone numbers
> - this service is provided by the Secretariat to
> facilitate
> you a necessary negotiations with fellow colleagues,
> but also
> because the Secretariat needs to know how to reach
> you in all
> difficult situations.
>
> I encourage you to have a look on the 1999 vote in
> http://www.dnso.org/votes/vote02/NCvote02index.html
> It will give you the real example of all possible
> situations
> (at least I hope so, but we may have new surprises
> ...).
> You will see all proxies, and how the vote is
> handled when
> several answers for the same person-ballot arrive.
> The call to China is in
>
http://www.dnso.org/votes/vote02/Archives/msg00217.html
>
> To be sure I was not confusing too much - the vote
> to elect ICANN
> Board director is secret, but once the results are
> accepted
> by ICANN the full record of who voted for whom is
> discarded.
>
> If you have any additional question, please let me
> know.
>
> Elisabeth
> --
>
> > From owner-council@dnso.org Sun Jul 15 00:17 MET
> 2001
> > From: tony.ar.holmes@bt.com
> > Message-ID:
>
<5B81FD3DEFEDD211B07C00606DE1FC3708130F27@mclmsent07.lon.bt.com>
> > To: mcade@att.com, kstubbs@digitel.net,
> council@dnso.org
> > Cc: touton@icann.org
> > Subject: RE: [council] Time table and problems
> with voting during travel
> > Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2001 23:15:06 +0100
> > MIME-version: 1.0
> >
> > Marilyn/Ken et al
> > I think you've hit the nail on the head here. An
> undertaking to represent
> > true DNSO views should certainly be viewed as a
> positive step, Ken's
> > statement 'that board members are obligated to
> step beyond their
> > constituencies' is a fundamental requirement of
> the ICANN process. Dare I
> > suggest that currently the required linkage
> between the DNSO and its Board
> > Members could be considered rather 'fragile'?
> Without meaning to be
> > critical of any of our existing Board members,
> from the ISP perspective,
> > currently we have no Board member from our
> constituency, however some Board
> > members have made a point of joining us for some
> of our sessions at ICANN
> > meetings, others we've never seen. I fully
> appreciate they can't (and
> > probably shouldn't) attend all constituency
> sessions, but I've always viewed
> > DNSO representation at Board level as an area that
> requires some attention
> > in order to become fully effective, and have yet
> to be convinced otherwise.
> > To some of us it now seems as though ICANN has
> been around for a long time,
> > but in truth many aspects of ICANN still have a
> long way to go on the
> > learning curve. Expecting anything other than that
> just isn't pragmatic in
> > such a highly charged environment.
> >
> > I also concur with your point Marilyn, that e-mail
> campaigns could be used
> > to make specific campaign pledges to
> constituencies which may then be self
> > defeating. I'd go a step further and suggest that
> if anyone played it that
> > way, not only would they damage their chances
> they'd also damage those
> > constituencies they purported to represent. To me
> this just fuels my desire
> > to understand where candidates are coming from.
> Asking them to go on record
> > in a manner that facilitates a degree of
> accountability should be viewed as
> > a plus.
> >
> > I'd also appreciate some clarity why proxy's are
> currently ruled out. Surely
> > the aim is to ensure we adopt the best
> representative, open, fair electoral
> > process possible. At the moment we seem to be
> inhibiting that by our own
> > processes. Is it possible to review this to see
> if we can establish a
> > system that facilitates proxy voting through a
> mechanism which provides all
> > the required safeguards?
> >
> > Tony
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [SMTP:mcade@att.com]
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 7:11 PM
> > > To: 'Ken Stubbs'; Cade,Marilyn S - LGA;
> council@dnso.org
> > > Cc: 'Louis Touton'
> > > Subject: RE: [council] Time table and problems
> with voting during
> > > travel
> > >
> > > Ken, if you mean the full NC views, then you and
> I have no disagreement...
> > > :-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 1:39 PM
> > > To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; council@dnso.org
> > > Cc: 'Louis Touton'
> > > Subject: Re: [council] Time table and problems
> with voting during travel
> > >
> > >
> > > fellow council members...
> > >
> > > If i may "dip my oar into the water" here please
> > >
> > > 1. some concerns about the timing of the
> election... given the process,
> > > there is no guarantee that a face-to-face
> election can necessarily be
> > > accomplished.. (much of that will be determined
> by the number of
> > > candidates)
> > >
> > > also there is the issue of "consulting with the
> constituancies" between
> > > rounds and allowing for adequate amount of time
> for any votes to be
> > > tendered
> > > by names council members not in attendence (as
> they still would have the
> > > right to vote and "cannot" designate proxies to
> anyone.. (to the best of
> > > my
> > > knowledge)
> > >
> > > these issues need to be both clarified.
> > >
> > > as to your comments at the end of your message
> Marilyn.....
> > > although i fully agree with you that board
> members are obligated to step
> > > beyond their constituancies;
> > > the underlying basis behind the requirement for
> electing ICANN board
> > > members
> > > from each supporting organization lends itself
> to the concept of the ICANN
> > > board members from "our" DNSO being fully
> committed to representing OUR
> > > perspectives and issues as they relate to the
> ICANN activities and our
> > > support organizations respective role in the
> process in their capacity as
> > > ICANN board members
> > >
> > > it is incumbent on any proposed candidate to
> both committ to this
> > > representation as well as demonstrate by both
> "past, as well as "current"
> > > actions, a willingness,desire & FULL committment
> to the DNSO .
> > >
> > > ken stubbs
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
> > > To: <tony.ar.holmes@bt.com>;
> <Paul.Kane@reacto.com>; <ceo@vany.org>;
> > > <council@dnso.org>; "'Philip Sheppard'"
> <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
> > > Cc: "'Louis Touton'" <touton@icann.org>
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 12:52 PM
> > > Subject: [council] Time table and problems with
> voting during travel
> > >
> > >
> > > > Folks, I'm pretty sure that Philip Sheppard is
> on holiday until next
> > > week,
> > > > and do not know that he has online access. In
> any case, this problem is
> > > the
> > > > kind which the full NC membership can deal
> with and come up with a
> > > > recommendation. Timing has crept up on us.
> that happens. So, what do we
> > > do
> > > > now?
> > > >
> > > > As I understand the situation, we have a
> problem in having sufficient
> > > time
> > > > to have nominations, support, and voting.
> Let's give some online
> > > > consideration to making a request to the ICANN
> legal team (Louie, that's
> > > > you, right) about what the options are. We
> should strive to ensure that
> > > all
> > > > NC reps can expect to be able to vote. Their
> constituencies expect that
> > > > representation from them. As the NC, let's
> see if we can make some
> > > specific
> > > > proposals, quickly assess them, and put
> forward a recommendation/request
> > > to
> > > > Louie about how to achieve.
> > > >
> > > > For instance, can any of the early phases be
> shortened, and what are
> > > those
> > > > consequences? I personally am opposed to
> shortening the phases of the
> > > > election. I will take further consultation
> with the BC members, as will
> > > the
> > > > rest of the BC reps, but on first take... I
> think that is a bad idea and
> > > > that postponing the election creates fewer
> problems. I regret that "we"
> > > > didn't notice this conflict before, but you
> know what? We are all
> > > > volunteers, trying to do our best, and stuff
> like this happens. Let's
> > > think
> > > > through some solutions and approaches.
> > > >
> > > > Elections need to be given full attention and
> time needed. Shortening
> > > the
> > > > timing of any of the phases gives me some
> caution. But, I'm open to
> > > hearing
> > > > what others think, and need to hear back from
> the BC constituency, which
> > > > Grant and I will undertake doing.
> > > >
> > > > Can we hold the vote in Uruguay and not
> disadvantage the NC members not
> > > in
> > > > attendance.? I don't know about that, but
> here's a question: Can we
> > > find
> > > > out who is attending; who is calling in?
> Secretariat could send a poll
> > > > immediately to verify who plans to attend; who
> is firm; who is
> > > tentative;
> > > > who is not attending. That would help to
> determine practicality of face
> > > to
> > > > face to election. Then, IF face to face, we
> would need to schedule time
> > > and
> > > > room, and dial in for those not in
> Montevideo... Is that possible? I
> > > woul
> > > d
> > > > assume so, but it might mean that we need to
> conflict with other
> > > meetings.
> > > > Is that a good idea? Maybe...
> > > >
> > > > Is it better to get the campaign period out of
> the way before, so that
> > > the
> > > > rest of the work can proceed? then hold the
> election after the meeting.
> > > > Sounds like a possibility to me... what do
> others think?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > But, can I question, though, that proxies are
> not possible? We'll have
> > > some
> > > > problem, regardless of when the election is
> held, about someone not
> > > being
> > > > available. If a NC member is not available --
> live goes on; birth,
> > > death,
> > > > taxes... etc. A crisis will arise at some
> point.... Is it not possible
> > > to
> > > > designate someone from the Constituency, then,
> to carry the proxy for a
> > > NC
> > > > member vote? My memory isn't great, but I
> thought I remembered some
> > > kind
> > > of
> > > > designation during the last round of voting
> due to unusual
> > > circumstances?
> > > >
> > > > Louie, my personal archives have expired...
> but I'm sure that ICANN's
> > > > haven't. Or the Secretariat's. Is there any
> precedent?
> > > >
> > > > Looking forward to other's thoughts.
> > > >
> > > > On email campaigns, I don't know what you mean
> and would like to hear
> > > more.
> > > > We are seeking board members who will assume
> broad and diverse
> > > > representation about ICANN's issues. Putting
> people in the position of
> > > > making campaign promises to different
> constitutiences is a self
> > > defeating
> > > > approach. Board members are, I hope, elected
> because they step beyond
> > > their
> > > > individual perspectives and are able to look
> to the good of the whole,
> > > > affected by ICANN. I know that not all share
> my view about the
> > > importance
> > > > of this. One can ensure that all views are
> heard, and even advocate
> > > that
> > > > some views are being heard well enough... but
> as a Board member,
> > > ensuring
> > > > that the broad spectrum of interests is
> respected, reflected, and
> > > supported
> > > > is a key attribute.
> > > >
> > > > I suggest that the candidates post statements
> to the list, as last time
> > > > around. There's work for each elected NC rep
> to do .... each of the BC
> > > reps
> > > > is responsible to their own constituency to
> undertake outreach, take
> > > input,
> > > > listen to, and seek to educate/provide
> information to their constituency
> > > > members. In order to do that effectively,
> statements from the candidates
> > > are
> > > > essential.
> > > >
> > > > It may be that statements of endorsement are
> also useful within a
> > > > constituency. I leave that to each
> constituency to determine.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: tony.ar.holmes@bt.com
> [mailto:tony.ar.holmes@bt.com]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 5:03 AM
> > > > To: Paul.Kane@reacto.com; ceo@vany.org;
> council@dnso.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [council] Time table for ICANN
> Board election this year
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > > > I very much support your point regarding
> written e-mail campaigns, we
> > > should
> > > > all be judged against something more
> substantial than verbal statements
> > > that
> > > > quickly lose their accountability as time
> passes, (maybe you and I are
> > > > feeling particularly paranoid because of
> recent events in the UK!)
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the election, from a personally
> selfish standpoint I don't
> > > favour
> > > > the election being held prior to Montevideo.
> Its purely down to the
> > > point
> > > > that I hadn't really taken in that proxy's
> were not applicable and I'll
> > > be
> > > > out of contact from 13th to 31st August.
> > > >
> > > > Whichever course we choose it appears somebody
> will be disadvantaged.
> > > The
> > > > timing of this election is far from desirable.
> I hope we can find a way
> > > to
> > > > stop this happening in the future.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Tony
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Paul M. Kane
> [SMTP:Paul.Kane@reacto.com]
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2001 6:42 AM
> > > > > To: ceo@vany.org; names council
> > > > > Subject: Re: [council] Time table for ICANN
> Board election this year
> > > > >
> > > > > Appreciating Peter's point - we have just
> held a Parliamentary
> > > Election
> > > > > here in the UK and what candidates _said_ in
> "person"
> > > > > before the election and what they have
> _done_ after the election are
> > > two
> > > > > very different things!!
> > > > >
> > > > > Further, I am concerned about the logistics.
> Some of the NC members
> > > will
> > > > > be travelling/touring after the Montevideo
> meeting
> > > > > and possibly unable to take part in the
> vote. Proxy's are not
> > > applicable
> > > > > in voting for Board members.
> > > > >
> > > > > With the risk of non-participation of NC
> representatives much lower if
> > > the
> > > > > election is before the travel to Montevideo
> and to
> > > > > ensure a more open, transparent and genuine
> election, I would prefer
> > > to
> > > > > see written - email - campaigns (always
> useful to
> > > > > see if the pledges have been achieved!!)
> with the election concluded
> > > > > BEFORE Montevideo.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to support Ken Stubbs/Milton
> Mueller proposal to conduct
> > > the
> > > > > election BEFORE Montevideo ... eg: 28th
> August
> > > > >
> > > > > Best
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Vany Martinez wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Peter:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Whatever schedule for me that complies
> with what you
> > > > > > said here, it is fine for me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best Regards
> > > > > > Vany
> > > > > > --- Peter de Blanc <pdeblanc@usvi.net>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > I would suggest that the nominations be
> conducted
> > > > > > > PRIOR to the
> > > > > > > Montevideo meeting, with the actual vote
> to be
> > > > > > > conducted AFTER
> > > > > > > Montevideo.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This would allow for face-to-face
> presentation of
> > > > > > > candidate agendas and
> > > > > > > positions, and an opportunity to
> campaign.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Peter de Blanc
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: owner-council@dnso.org
> > > > > > > [mailto:owner-council@dnso.org] On
> Behalf
> > > > > > > Of Milton Mueller
> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2001 2:06 PM
> > > > > > > To: Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr;
> > > > > > > kstubbs@digitel.net;
> > > > > > > council@dnso.org;
> DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [council] Time table for
> ICANN Board
> > > > > > > election this year
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree. Let's move it up even further
> to last of
> > > > > > > August.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >>> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> > > > > > > <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
> 07/12/01
> > > > > > > >>> 13:39 PM >>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would not recommend to vote in
> September 4th-6th,
> > > > > > > because several of
> > > > > > > us will be on the way to Montevideo, or
> already
> > > > > > > sitting on meetings in
> > > > > > > Montevideo (some starts on 5th morning).
> To be safe
> > > > > > > I would avoid any
> > > > > > > date in September prior to Montevideo.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Would it be better ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Elisabeth
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > we are pushing our backs to the wall
> here !!!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > timetable is quite difficult as many
> will be
> > > > > > > travelling on the 11 & 12
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > of september and it may be difficult
> to assemble
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > personally i believe it would be
> better to move
> > > > > > > the whole process up
> > > > > > > > one week and start the nominations
> july 16 and the
> > > > > > > election on august
> > > > > > > > 28 or september 4th -6th (remember we
> are only
> > > > > > > voting for 1 person
> > > > > > > > and could have 2 votes/day if we
> wished
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > comments please ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ken stubbs
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > DNSO Secretariat wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Council,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The term of Amadeu Abril i Abril,
> ICANN Board
> > > > > > > Director elected by
> > > > > > > > > the DNSO Names Council in 1999
> expires on 30
> > > > > > > September 2001.
> > > > > > > > > The remaining two DNSO elected
> Directors are
> > > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty
> > > > > > > > > (LatinAC) and Jonathan Cohen
> (NorthAm).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This year election will be open to
> candidates
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > 3 geographic regions: Europe,
> AsiaPac and
> > > > > > > Africa.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > According to the procedures for
> election, the
> > > > > > > proposed time table,
> > > > > > > > > validated with Philip Sheppard is:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nominations = 3 weeks:
> > > > > > > > > Start: Monday 23 July 2001
> > > > > > > > > End: Monday 13 August 2001
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Endorsements = 3 weeks:
> > > > > > > > > Start: Monday 13 August 2001
> > > > > > > >> End: Monday 03 September 2001
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Break for Montevideo ICANN Meetings
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Vote by the NC = 4 days:
> > > > > > > > > Start: Wednesday 12 September 2001
> > > > > > > > > End: Saturday 15 September 2001 -
> telecon to
> > > > > > > confirm results
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We MUST provide results to ICANN no
> later than
> > > > > > > 16 September (it was
> > > > > > > > > checked with Louis Touton last year
> for legal
> > > > > > > reasons).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The ICANN Board election associated
> web pages
> > > > > > > are under preparation
> > > > > > > > > and will be ready next week.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > DNSO Secretariat
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > =====
> > > > > > Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
> > > > > > Information Technology Specialist
> > > > > > Sustainable Development Networking
> Programme/Panama
> > > > > > http://www.sdnp.org.pa e-mail:
> vany@sdnp.org.pa
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Go to
>
http://www.getpaid4.com/cgi-bin/emailpanel.cgi?userid=659401
> > > to
> > > > > receive FREE newsletters via email!
> > > > > > Go to http://www.getpaid4.com?sheharhore
> to make $$$ using YOUR OWN
> > > > > computer and sigining subscribers in YOUR
> OWN emails!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > > > Get personalized email addresses from
> Yahoo! Mail
> > > > > > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> > > >
> > > >
> >
=====
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
http://www.sdnp.org.pa e-mail: vany@sdnp.org.pa
Go to http://www.getpaid4.com/cgi-bin/emailpanel.cgi?userid=659401 to receive FREE newsletters via email!
Go to http://www.getpaid4.com?sheharhore to make $$$ using YOUR OWN computer and sigining subscribers in YOUR OWN emails!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|