Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #84
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, June 14 2000           Volume 01 : Number 084

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 23:18:18 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Formalizing Voting Procedures for the DNSO GA

FYI - there are 86 persons signed up to the voting registry so far.
Of those, 51 are residents of the United States.

                 Harald
- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 16:38:46 -0500
From: "Kevin M. Kelly" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Formalizing Voting Procedures for the DNSO GA

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
>FYI - there are 86 persons signed up to the voting registry so far.
>Of those, 51 are residents of the United States.
>
That is a very bad sign indeed.  We rarely seem to agree amongst ourselves
on anything!

Kevin M. Kelly
http://www.KMKelly.net
http://www.BlarneyCanning.com
http://www.KellyWebworks.com

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 14:44:57 -0700
From: Darrell Greenwood <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: GA-DIGEST V1 #83

At 1:58 PM -0700 6/11/00, GA-DIGEST wrote:

>The DNSO General Assembly needs to formalize its voting procedures.
>The very initial startup step consists to agree on the voting rules,
>as proposed by Harald Alvestrand, Alternate Chair, and amended
>according to the comments received, in:
>    http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html

Looks good to me.

>Once the DNSO GA agree on the voting rules, the next step will
>be to vote on the Voting Registry rules, in:
>    http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-registry.html

Looks good to me.

Cheers,

Darrell

- --
Darrell Greenwood           mailto:[email-masked]
Vancouver, BC               http://www.nyx.net/~dgreenw/

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 01:45:05 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Formalizing Voting Procedures for the DNSO GA

Just a question of wording:

In the first proposal it said (about rule change votes)
> [...] the number of votes cast must be at least half
> of the membership.

It was then modified to
> [...] the number of votes cast must be at least 2/3 of
> cast votes, with a minimum number of cast votes being
> the lower of 20% or 100 votes.

20% of what -- cast votes?
Maybe it should read '20% of the membership' instead?

Regards,
/// Alexander
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:58:31 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Formalizing Voting Procedures for the DNSO GA

At 01:45 12.06.2000 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>Just a question of wording:
>
>In the first proposal it said (about rule change votes)
> > [...] the number of votes cast must be at least half
> > of the membership.
>
>It was then modified to
> > [...] the number of votes cast must be at least 2/3 of
> > cast votes, with a minimum number of cast votes being
> > the lower of 20% or 100 votes.
>
>20% of what -- cast votes?
>Maybe it should read '20% of the membership' instead?

20% of the membership. Thanks for catching this!

There are more things that are not quite covered:

- - how does one decide in multiple-choice situations, such as
   elections with > 2 candidates, or 3 candidate rule sets?
   Runoff, or "highest wins"? (I think runoff is often reasonable)

- - when a rule is initially introduced, does the 2/3 requirement apply?
   (I think it should apply)

As usual, I can think of more problems than it's reasonable to address...
but we might not want to cover everything in the first pass.

                   Harald

- --
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:38:45 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN - New TLD Consultation document

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: WG's ]
[ To: [email-masked]]
[ To: [email-masked] ; please inform your Constituency members]

Please refer to the following URL for the ICANN consultation document:
    http://www.icann.org/yokohama/new-tld-topic.htm

    ICANN Yokohama Meeting Topic: Introduction of New Top-Level Domains
    Posted: 13 June 2000 Deadline for Public Comments: 10 July 2000

The ICANN Board of Directors is expected to consider adopting 
a policy under which new TLDs would be introduced in a measured 
and responsible manner at its meeting on 15-16 July 2000 in Yokohama,
Japan.

DNSO Secretariat
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #84
***********************