Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #85
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, June 20 2000            Volume 01 : Number 085

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 15:24:35 -0400
From: "Ben Edelman" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] FW: ANNOUNCEMENT: Upcoming ICANN-Yokohama Meetings

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ben Edelman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 3:23 PM
To: Participants and Preregistrants in Prior ICANN Meetings
Subject: ANNOUNCEMENT: Upcoming ICANN-Yokohama Meetings

Greetings!

Because you attended or participated remotely in one or more prior ICANN
meetings, ICANN would like to remind you of its upcoming meetings to be held
in Yokohama, Japan on July 12 to 17.  Major agenda items will include the At
Large membership election of ICANN Directors, policies relating to the
creation of new top-level domain registries, and ccTLD delegation and
administration policies.  More information about the meetings is available
at <http://www.icann.org/yokohama>, and the agenda is at
<http://www.icann.org/yokohama/agenda.htm>.

If you plan to attend in person, please preregister via
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/preregistration> (if you have
not already done so).  While preregistration is not required, it helps local
organizers anticipate attendance and allows you to be kept up to date with
logistical updates as they become available.

All plenary sessions will also be webcast with full remote participation.
For more information about the webcast, including technical requirements to
participate, see <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama>.  If you plan
to participate by webcast, please preregister using
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/yokohama/preregistration>.

Finally, if you are not already subscribed to ICANN's announcements list,
you may want to do so.  Subscription instructions at
<http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcements.htm>.

Ben Edelman
Berkman Center for Internet and Society
Harvard Law School

- --
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, 19 Jun 2000 12:53:13 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Mime-Version: 1.0

unsubscribe

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <[email-masked]>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA

- --
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, 19 Jun 2000 12:56:53 -0700
From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Mime-Version: 1.0

At 12:53 PM 6/19/00 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>unsubscribe

oops. sorry.  d/

=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker  <[email-masked]>
Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA

- --
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: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 09:59:57 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

Based on the discussion earlier, here's what I propose as final text.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
VOTING RULES FOR THE DNSO GA
Version 0.4

These are the rules for voting in the General assembly.

- - A vote begins when the Chair approves a ballot.
   The ballot is sent to the registered GA voters by the secretariat.
- - The typical amount of time given to reply to a vote is one week.
- - In the case of a choice between multiple alternatives, the alternative 
with the most votes wins.
- - In the case of selecting N candidates from a slate of M, with N > M, the
N top candidates win.
- - A runoff ballot may be held if the number of votes for two alternatives 
is equal, and this affects the result. Only the two alternatives involved 
are inclulded on a runoff ballot.
- - In the case where the question is a new rule or rule change for the GA, 
the number of votes in favour of the winning alternative must be at least 
2/3 of cast votes, with a minimum number of cast votes being the lower of 
20% of the registered voters or 100 votes.
- -  The voters are those who are registered as voters when a vote is first 
sent out.

The voting roster and a method to register for voting are available in 
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html
- --------------------
The ballot for voting on this rule should read something like:

[] I want the voting rules at <URL> to be approved
[] I do not want the voting rules at <URL> to be approved

2/3 majority required to win, since it's a rule introduction.
Does this seem uncontroversial? If so - let's vote on it!

                  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: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:35:50 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

A few comments:

1. It seems like one week may be a little short for the amount of time to
vote.  If someone is away from email for a week, they miss the vote.  A
couple weeks would seem more reasonable especially in an international
setting.  It doesn't seem necessary to rush this.  Also, two weeks would
allow more time to deal with email glitches that might delay mail delivery.

2. Reasonable advance notice of upcoming votes should be given; a minimum of
two weeks advance notice would probably work.  Advance notice could simply
involve an estimated time when a vote is anticipated because the exact date
when the ballot will be approved may not be known far enough ahead of time.
For example, a notice could say something like this: "A vote regarding GA
opinion regarding Names Council proposal A is anticipated in two to three
weeks from the date of this message."

3. Because the DNSO is supposed to be a consensus-building organization, I
would consider modifying the third rule as follows: "In the case of a choice
between multiple alternatives, the alternative with the most votes over 50%
of those cast wins.  If no choice receives more than 50%, there is no
winner."

4. I think rule 4 should be worded like this: "In the case of selecting N
candidates from a slate of M, with M > N, the N top candidates win."  In
other words, when selecting 4 candidates from a slate of 10, the top 4 win.
An important question to answer in this type of situation is this: "How many
votes does each member get and can they use all their votes for one
candidate?"

Chuck Gomes

- -----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 4:00 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

Based on the discussion earlier, here's what I propose as final text.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
VOTING RULES FOR THE DNSO GA
Version 0.4

These are the rules for voting in the General assembly.

- - A vote begins when the Chair approves a ballot.
   The ballot is sent to the registered GA voters by the secretariat.
- - The typical amount of time given to reply to a vote is one week.
- - In the case of a choice between multiple alternatives, the alternative 
with the most votes wins.
- - In the case of selecting N candidates from a slate of M, with N > M, the
N top candidates win.
- - A runoff ballot may be held if the number of votes for two alternatives 
is equal, and this affects the result. Only the two alternatives involved 
are inclulded on a runoff ballot.
- - In the case where the question is a new rule or rule change for the GA, 
the number of votes in favour of the winning alternative must be at least 
2/3 of cast votes, with a minimum number of cast votes being the lower of 
20% of the registered voters or 100 votes.
- -  The voters are those who are registered as voters when a vote is first 
sent out.

The voting roster and a method to register for voting are available in 
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html
- --------------------
The ballot for voting on this rule should read something like:

[] I want the voting rules at <URL> to be approved
[] I do not want the voting rules at <URL> to be approved

2/3 majority required to win, since it's a rule introduction.
Does this seem uncontroversial? If so - let's vote on it!

                  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
- --
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: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:51:25 +0100
From: Michael Froomkin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------C02A5AB7FCB1953915D7D30D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I think STV should be available for votes with multiple alternatives. 
Otherwise the system is (a) manipulable; (b) interminable.
- -- 
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                -->   It's hot there.   I'm elsewhere.   <--
- --------------C02A5AB7FCB1953915D7D30D
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Subject: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:35:50 -0400
Sender: [email-masked]

A few comments:

1. It seems like one week may be a little short for the amount of time to
vote.  If someone is away from email for a week, they miss the vote.  A
couple weeks would seem more reasonable especially in an international
setting.  It doesn't seem necessary to rush this.  Also, two weeks would
allow more time to deal with email glitches that might delay mail delivery.

2. Reasonable advance notice of upcoming votes should be given; a minimum of
two weeks advance notice would probably work.  Advance notice could simply
involve an estimated time when a vote is anticipated because the exact date
when the ballot will be approved may not be known far enough ahead of time.
For example, a notice could say something like this: "A vote regarding GA
opinion regarding Names Council proposal A is anticipated in two to three
weeks from the date of this message."

3. Because the DNSO is supposed to be a consensus-building organization, I
would consider modifying the third rule as follows: "In the case of a choice
between multiple alternatives, the alternative with the most votes over 50%
of those cast wins.  If no choice receives more than 50%, there is no
winner."

4. I think rule 4 should be worded like this: "In the case of selecting N
candidates from a slate of M, with M > N, the N top candidates win."  In
other words, when selecting 4 candidates from a slate of 10, the top 4 win.
An important question to answer in this type of situation is this: "How many
votes does each member get and can they use all their votes for one
candidate?"

Chuck Gomes

- -----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 4:00 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

Based on the discussion earlier, here's what I propose as final text.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
VOTING RULES FOR THE DNSO GA
Version 0.4

These are the rules for voting in the General assembly.

- - A vote begins when the Chair approves a ballot.
   The ballot is sent to the registered GA voters by the secretariat.
- - The typical amount of time given to reply to a vote is one week.
- - In the case of a choice between multiple alternatives, the alternative 
with the most votes wins.
- - In the case of selecting N candidates from a slate of M, with N > M, the
N top candidates win.
- - A runoff ballot may be held if the number of votes for two alternatives 
is equal, and this affects the result. Only the two alternatives involved 
are inclulded on a runoff ballot.
- - In the case where the question is a new rule or rule change for the GA, 
the number of votes in favour of the winning alternative must be at least 
2/3 of cast votes, with a minimum number of cast votes being the lower of 
20% of the registered voters or 100 votes.
- -  The voters are those who are registered as voters when a vote is first 
sent out.

The voting roster and a method to register for voting are available in 
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html
- --------------------
The ballot for voting on this rule should read something like:

[] I want the voting rules at <URL> to be approved
[] I do not want the voting rules at <URL> to be approved

2/3 majority required to win, since it's a rule introduction.
Does this seem uncontroversial? If so - let's vote on it!

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

- --------------C02A5AB7FCB1953915D7D30D--

- --
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: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:46:54 +0200
From: Mark Measday <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------1A02480DC1C8DEACEB4E1F1D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Agree (if it comes to a vote about voting)

Michael Froomkin wrote:
> 
> I think STV should be available for votes with multiple alternatives.
> Otherwise the system is (a) manipulable; (b) interminable.
> --
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                 -->   It's hot there.   I'm elsewhere.   <--
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Subject: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4
> Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 07:35:50 -0400
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
> To: "'Harald Tveit Alvestrand'" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
> 
> A few comments:
> 
> 1. It seems like one week may be a little short for the amount of time to
> vote.  If someone is away from email for a week, they miss the vote.  A
> couple weeks would seem more reasonable especially in an international
> setting.  It doesn't seem necessary to rush this.  Also, two weeks would
> allow more time to deal with email glitches that might delay mail delivery.
> 
> 2. Reasonable advance notice of upcoming votes should be given; a minimum of
> two weeks advance notice would probably work.  Advance notice could simply
> involve an estimated time when a vote is anticipated because the exact date
> when the ballot will be approved may not be known far enough ahead of time.
> For example, a notice could say something like this: "A vote regarding GA
> opinion regarding Names Council proposal A is anticipated in two to three
> weeks from the date of this message."
> 
> 3. Because the DNSO is supposed to be a consensus-building organization, I
> would consider modifying the third rule as follows: "In the case of a choice
> between multiple alternatives, the alternative with the most votes over 50%
> of those cast wins.  If no choice receives more than 50%, there is no
> winner."
> 
> 4. I think rule 4 should be worded like this: "In the case of selecting N
> candidates from a slate of M, with M > N, the N top candidates win."  In
> other words, when selecting 4 candidates from a slate of 10, the top 4 win.
> An important question to answer in this type of situation is this: "How many
> votes does each member get and can they use all their votes for one
> candidate?"
> 
> Chuck Gomes
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 4:00 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Voting rules, take 4
> 
> Based on the discussion earlier, here's what I propose as final text.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> VOTING RULES FOR THE DNSO GA
> Version 0.4
> 
> These are the rules for voting in the General assembly.
> 
> - A vote begins when the Chair approves a ballot.
>    The ballot is sent to the registered GA voters by the secretariat.
> - The typical amount of time given to reply to a vote is one week.
> - In the case of a choice between multiple alternatives, the alternative
> with the most votes wins.
> - In the case of selecting N candidates from a slate of M, with N > M, the
> N top candidates win.
> - A runoff ballot may be held if the number of votes for two alternatives
> is equal, and this affects the result. Only the two alternatives involved
> are inclulded on a runoff ballot.
> - In the case where the question is a new rule or rule change for the GA,
> the number of votes in favour of the winning alternative must be at least
> 2/3 of cast votes, with a minimum number of cast votes being the lower of
> 20% of the registered voters or 100 votes.
> -  The voters are those who are registered as voters when a vote is first
> sent out.
> 
> The voting roster and a method to register for voting are available in
> http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html
> --------------------
> The ballot for voting on this rule should read something like:
> 
> [] I want the voting rules at <URL> to be approved
> [] I do not want the voting rules at <URL> to be approved
> 
> 2/3 majority required to win, since it's a rule introduction.
> Does this seem uncontroversial? If so - let's vote on it!
> 
>                   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
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
Mark Measday 
__________________________________________________________________________

Josmarian SA (Switzerland) Josmarian (UK) Ltd
http://www.josmarian.ch [email-masked]
UK tel/fax: 0044.1273.47.48.94  UK mobile: 0044.370.947.420
French tel/fax: 0033.450.20.94.92 

'Tragedy inheres in all choice' : Isaiah Berlin
__________________________________________________________________________
- --------------1A02480DC1C8DEACEB4E1F1D
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="measday.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Mark Measday
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="measday.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Measday;Mark
tel;cell:0044370947420
tel;fax:0033450209492
tel;home:00441273474894
tel;work:0033450209492
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://www.josmarian.ch
org:Josmarian SA
version:2.1
email;internet:[email-masked]
title:Director
adr;quoted-printable:;;The Old Vicarage=0D=0AIford=0D=0A=0D=0A=0D=0A;Near Lewes;Sussex;BNB7 3EH;United Kingdom
note;quoted-printable:Josmarian is a swiss virtual rights consultancy company specialising =0D=0Ain advice to international companies and  institutions on appropriate legal and technical =0D=0Astrategies to transition from bilateral or multilateral internationalist to thinking globalist. =0D=0AThat was last year, anyway.
fn:Mark Measday
end:vcard

- --------------1A02480DC1C8DEACEB4E1F1D--

- --
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: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:46:39 -0500
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Voting mechanisms

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------B5DDF0A5D9A78C827C91FD5D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Prof. Froomkin wrote:

     I think STV should be available for votes with multiple
     alternatives.
     Otherwise the system is (a) manipulable; (b) interminable.

I am suggesting STV as the proper mechanism for filling several
seats at once (i.e. "multiple winner"). The number of alternatives
for each seat is another matter, which is addressed, below.

If there are only two alternatives, I think the default is simply
"majority rules"--i.e. whoever gets the most votes wins.  The
question, then, is how to best reflect the electorate's wishes in
which there are more than two candidates so as to avoid plurality
(which may be better described as "minority") rule?

So, what are the available mechanisms for determining voter
preferences in multi-candidate races for a single seat?

The Center For Voting and Democracy suggests the INSTANT RUNOFF
VOTING (IRV)
system <http://www.fairvote.org/irv/index.html> (which I believe is
an STV "plug-in") in which
voters are asked to rank their choices (1-X).  The computer
determines the winner by calculating
several rounds of eliminating candidates with the least support.
The result is "virtually"
instantaneous.  In a "head-to-head" contest (only 2 candidates), you
have simple "majority rule."  The
Center's rationale is as follows:

         Instant Runoff Voting is a winner-take-all system that
makes
         it more likely that a winning candidate will receive a
         majority of votes rather than a simple plurality. In
plurality
         voting -- as used in most U.S. elections -- candidates can
         win with less than a majority when there are more than two
         candidates running for the office. In contrast, IRV is more

         likely to elect a majority candidate while still allowing
         voters to support a candidate who is not a front-runner.
         IRV is a sensible method in single winner elections.

   A full explanation of the system is on the Center's website
   http://www.fairvote.org/irv/index.html.

   I strongly recommend the use of the IRV voting system.

- --------------B5DDF0A5D9A78C827C91FD5D
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii;
 name="weisberg.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Weisberg
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="weisberg.vcf"

begin:vcard 
n:Weisberg;Eric
tel;cell:903.814.7602
tel;fax:903.465.2976
tel;home:903.463.3308
tel;work:903.463.3364
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
adr:;;;;;;
version:2.1
email;internet:[email-masked]
fn:Eric Weisberg, Gen. Counsel
end:vcard

- --------------B5DDF0A5D9A78C827C91FD5D--

- --
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: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:30:46 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]

STV would certainly answer some of my concerns.

Chuck Gomes

- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael Froomkin [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 12:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]

I think STV should be available for votes with multiple alternatives. 
Otherwise the system is (a) manipulable; (b) interminable.
- -- 
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                -->   It's hot there.   I'm elsewhere.   <--
- --
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 #85
***********************