Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #86
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, June 21 2000           Volume 01 : Number 086

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:21:03 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]

At 18:46 20.06.2000 +0200, Mark Measday wrote:
>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.

It's been formally proven that all voting systems may have outcomes that
are in conflict with the desires of the voters. (I could probably find
the issue of Scientific American where this was the subject of the 
recreational mathematics column, if someone really cares...)

My personal favourite for multiple choice, single winner is Approval 
Voting, because it tends to pick an alternative most of the people can live 
with, and has less temptation towards "tactical voting" than most of the 
other alternatives; for multiple choice, multiple winner I don't have a 
favourite.

But I'd like to keep this ruleset short, and have the vote this week.
Can we make language changes that let us do a Right Thing now and a Better 
Thing later?

                         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, 21 Jun 2000 08:25:22 +0900
From: Kilnam Chon <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Draft final report of WG-E Global Awareness and Outreach for public comment

the following draft final report of WG-E is being posted at www.dnso.org for
public comment.

hope we can complete the WG-E activities by Yokohama Meeting.

chon
*******************************************************************************

          DNSO Working Group E Report - Global Awareness and
          Outreach

          12 June 2000

          The charter of DNSO Working Group E was to develop a
          recommendation in response to specific questions raised
          in regard to three categories of issues: (1) generic
          issues, (2) General Assembly specific issues and (3)
          constituency specific issues. In each of the three
          categories, questions were organized into three
          subcategories: (1) target audience, (2) awareness and (3)
          outreach.

          Because there is considerable overlap between the issues
          and questions raised in the three major categories, the
          recommendations in this report are combined into one set
          of recommendations for all three categories under the
          three subcategory headings (target audience, awareness
          and outreach). Under each of the subcategories, the
          specific questions are listed first followed by working
          group conclusions and finally working group
          recommendations. Not all questions were directly answered
          in Working Group E's efforts, but it is believed that the
          conclusions and recommendations following the questions
          in each section provide a reasonable framework for moving
          forward.

          In preparing the recommendations the following two
          assumptions were made:
          · Significant outreach should occur before the first
          at-large elections. To make this happen, implementation
          of outreach activities needs to happen as soon as
          possible after the ICANN meetings in Japan in July 2000.
          · Funding for outreach may be limited. If this is true,
          cost-effective methods should be a high priority.

          After the three sections of the report written in
          response to the charter questions, three additional
          sections follow. Section 4 contains implementation
          recommendations. Section 5 summarizes awareness and
          outreach activities already underway. And Section 6
          discusses the level of consensus achieved in Working
          Group E.

          1. Target Audience

          1.1 Questions

          1.1.1 Who are we looking for, professional and/or
          netizen? Who do we not want? Who are we addressing,
          potential General Assembly member or wider Internet
          community?
          1.1.2 Why should one join? What benefits will members
          receive? What is lost if one does not join?
          1.1.3 Who can be a member? Is there a potential members
          list?
          1.2 Working Group Conclusions

          1.2.1 Any person or organization that is interested in
          Internet issues under ICANN's realm of responsibility
          should be encouraged to participate.
          1.2.2 Membership benefits include the ability to
          participate in the ICANN decision-making process, the
          right to vote for ICANN board of directors candidates,
          the opportunity to be a part of working groups or
          committees, the chance to be included on discussion
          lists, etc.
          1.2.3 Membership qualifications vary with the ICANN
          organizational element involved. ICANN At Large
          membership is open to anyone who is interested in and
          willing to devote time to study important issues
          concerning the Internet's Domain Name System. Membership
          qualifications in supporting organizations are determined
          by each supporting organization. Membership
          qualifications in supporting organization constituencies
          are determined by the respective constituencies.

          1.3 Working Group Recommendations

          1.3.1 People who are currently impacted by ICANN
          activities should be targeted first. It is very difficult
          to motivate participation by those who do not currently
          have any real need. It will be more effective to first
          focus on those who already have a need and then later
          target those who may be affected in the future.
          1.3.2 Geographical and cultural diversity should be
          strongly emphasized.
          1.3.3 One audience that should always be targeted is that
          of newcomers (e.g., IETF Newcomer Orientation). In
          particular, newcomer orientation sessions should be
          offered at all ICANN public meetings.
          1.3.4 Target audience priorities:
          1.3.4.1 Priority # 1: ICANN at-large members. (It is
          assumed that ICANN at-large members would be amenable to
          receive and use information because of the upcoming ICANN
          at-large director elections.)
          1.3.4.2 Priority # 2: Potential ICANN at-large members.
          1.3.4.3 Priority # 3: Users of the ICANN web site.
          1.3.4.4 Priority # 4: Under-represented regions of the
          world (based on at-large membership demographics).
          Special emphasis should be placed on regions where ICANN
          involvement is minimal such as Central and South Asia,
          the Middle East and certain parts of Africa.
          1.3.4.5 Other priorities should be added that are less
          time sensitive and as funds allow.
          1.3.5 Incentives may be needed to encourage ongoing
          involvement. For example, being able to vote once a year
          may not be enough motivation for many people so other
          reasons for involvement may need to be established (e.g.,
          participation in polls, newsletter, etc.). A pilot study
          and/or investigation of existing research related to this
          area might be useful in determining what types of
          incentives would be effective.

          2. Awareness

          2.1 Questions

          2.1.1 What is the message? What information do we want to
          be known? What messages are sent to audience?
          2.1.2 What publication media shall we use?
          2.1.3 What public relations activities are needed?
          2.1.4 Is face-to-face presentation necessary in addition
          to contact through the Internet?
          2.1.5 How do we measure progress in awareness?
          2.1.6 What are geographic objectives?
          2.1.7 Is there a critical mass goal?

          2.2 Working Group Conclusions

          2.2.1 The goal should be to create materials that address
          particular needs of those who are prepared to receive and
          use the information. Different materials should be
          developed for different audiences.
          2.2.2 Simplicity will facilitate the widest possible
          distribution across the very diverse population to be
          reached. Simplicity will make it easier to translate
          materials into different languages as well as to
          distribute them via various means of communication.
          Simplicity will also facilitate the processes of
          distributing information quickly and making it easily
          understood and absorbed.
          2.2.3 Customization of information material to local
          community needs will improve the effectiveness of
          outreach. Customization can include translation into
          native languages, integration of information into
          familiar settings (e.g., web pages, local newsletters,
          etc.), etc.
          2.2.4 Central control of the content of information
          materials will reduce the likelihood of intended messages
          being distorted as they are distributed to different
          audiences and via different modes of communication.
          2.2.5 Outreach materials will be ignored if the content
          is not reliable and accurate.

          2.3 Working Group Recommendations

          2.3.1 Continuation of awareness activities already
          underway should be encouraged (see Section 5).
          2.3.2 There should be good educational programs at every
          ICANN meeting, including programs offered in the local
          language. These could be patterned after the Berkman
          Center workshops and/or the Joint ccTLD Workshops
          referred to in Section 5.1.1.
          2.3.3 Regional workshops including local language-based
          workshops should be encouraged.
          2.3.4 Cross-fertilization of workshops including
          knowledge and technology transfer should be encouraged.
          Personnel exchange is one of the most effective ways to
          do this. Also, the simple task of publishing meeting
          schedules to broader audiences could be helpful in this
          regard.
          2.3.5 The possibility of enhancing Web-casting of ICANN
          Meetings and workshops to encourage increased
          participation should be investigated.
          2.3.6 Collaboration with some publishing houses to
          publish ICANN activities should be explored.
          2.3.7 Information materials should be designed with
          specific target audiences in mind.
          2.3.8 Information materials should be designed as simply
          as possible.
          2.3.9 Information material should be customized to local
          community needs (e.g., translated into native languages,
          integrated into familiar settings, etc.).
          2.3.10 Content of information materials should be
          centrally controlled.
          2.3.11 A process should be put into place to ensure that
          information materials are kept up-to-date.
          2.3.12 If information is provided via a website, it
          should be provided in a layered format so that recipients
          can select to view the content that is meaningful to
          them. For example, web-based information could have links
          for domain name holders, for trademark holders, for users
          of e-commerce, for ISPs, for members of standards
          organizations, etc.
          2.3.13 Information content for at-large members (Priority
          # 1 above) should include: Possible content: 1. Status of
          election process for five directors; 2. Information about
          the nomination process; 3. Information about nominees; 4.
          Election details.
          2.3.14 Content for potential at-large members should
          include: 1. What is ICANN? 2. How might ICANN impact the
          Internet community? 3. What is the value of individual
          participation in ICANN? 4. What opportunities for
          individual participation are scheduled in the near term?
          (At large elections, working groups, ICANN meetings,
          etc.).

          3. Outreach

          3.1 Questions

          3.1.1 What does it require to become a member?
          3.1.2 How do we make it easy to become a member? How do
          we simplify the application process?
          3.1.3 How do we attract the interest of potential
          members? How do we make membership attractive?
          3.1.4 What would potential members want?
          3.1.5 What verification do we want for members?
          3.1.6 What obligations do members have?
          3.1.7 How do we communicate, advertise? Direct contacts?
          3.1.8 How do we leverage the cooperation of other
          organizations? Which organizations?
          3.1.9 How do we handle multilingual issues?
          3.1.10 What additional efforts do we need for developing
          countries?

          3.2 Working Group Conclusions

          3.2.1 Outreach activities are an essential need with
          regard to the ICANN at-large membership activities.
          Consequently, it is very important that any efforts
          resulting from Working Group E recommendations are
          coordinated with those related to at-large membership and
          the associated at-large director elections.
          3.2.2 Using existing channels within ICANN to reach the
          community is the most expedient way to distribute
          information and thereby encourage involvement. ICANN
          channels include: IP registries, name registries, name
          registrars, supporting organizations (ASO, DNSO, PSO),
          supporting organization constituencies, etc. Each of
          these channels represents various parts of the Internet
          community and each of them (to varying degrees) have
          existing ways to communicate with their customers. Using
          these channels to reach out to the community provides the
          fastest access to community members, is the most
          cost-efficient and most readily lends itself to local
          customization of the information. Using existing channels
          also has a greater probability of capturing the people
          who have a need to be involved with ICANN.
          3.2.3 Efforts should be made to distribute information
          via previously scheduled Internet events such as
          conferences, workshops, seminars, etc. Such events
          provide additional channels to reach the community.
          3.2.4 Information should be distributed in alternative
          formats to accommodate varying technical requirements.
          Information should always be available in text format for
          those who have low bandwidth connections.
          3.2.5 Distribution methods and channels should be
          documented to facilitate evaluation of effectiveness.
          Quantitative data should be obtained and analyzed.

          3.3 Working Group Recommendations

          3.3.1 Encourage continuation of outreach activities
          already underway (see Section 5).
          3.3.2 Encourage organizations in all parts of the world
          to implement outreach programs similar to those
          implemented by the regional Top Level Domain organizations;
          the African Top Level Domain Association(AFTLD), the Asia 
          Pacific TLD Forum(APTLD), the Council of European National 
          Top Level Registries(CENTR), and Latin America and Caribbean 
          Top Level Domain Association(LACTLD) (refer to Section 5.1).
          3.3.3 Coordinate awareness and outreach activities with
          at-large membership drive and at-large board director
          elections.
          3.3.4 Distribute information via existing ICANN channels
          on web sites, via email, etc.
          3.3.5 Reach out to the community through Internet related
          conferences, workshops, seminars, etc.
          3.3.6 Enlist the cooperation of the owners of the
          channels used with the understanding that content needs
          to remain consistent.
          3.3.7 Ensure that electronic information is available in
          alternative formats to accommodate varying technical
          requirements. Text format should always be an option.
          3.3.8 Consider the possibility of establishing regional
          ICANN offices. These could be based in the geographical
          regions and/or cultural/language regions. One way to
          facilitate this would be to enlist the cooperation of
          existing regional organizations such as regional ccTLD
          group secretariats, registrars, ISPs, and RIRs.
          3.3.9 Consider the possibility of providing special
          personnel and/or funding support to increase outreach
          efforts in geographical and/or cultural regions where
          knowledge of ICANN activities is not prevalent (e.g.,
          Central and South Asia, Middle East, and some parts of
          Africa).
          3.3.10 Document outreach efforts and evaluate their
          effectiveness so that the process can be improved going
          forward.

          4. Implementation Recommendations

          It is recommended that a team of volunteers be formed to
          work with ICANN in implementing Working Group E
          recommendations. This team could be a new DNSO working
          group, a continuation of Working Group E or simply an
          implementation team. Because working groups are intended
          to develop consensus positions, it seems to make sense
          that this be an implementation team. Characteristics of
          the team should be geographically and culturally diverse,
          should include representatives from Working Group E and
          should have multilingual skills if possible.

          Team responsibilities could include:
          1. Development and implementation of a short-term
          outreach and awareness plan in support of the at large
          membership drive and at large director elections
          2. Development of a detailed implementation plan
          3. Development of information content
          4. Identification of and coordination with distribution
          channels
          5. Development of procedures for ensuring content
          consistency
          6. Development of guidelines for content customization
          7. Solicitation of volunteers for translation services
          8. Solicitation of volunteers for other needed services
          such as web-site development expertise, etc.
          9. Development of quality control guidelines.

          5. Awareness and Outreach Activities Already Underway

          In terms of awareness levels, ICANN members can be
          grouped into two broad categories: those who participate
          in ICANN meetings and those who do not. The latter group
          is typically unable to participate in meetings because of
          geographical location and financial limitations. At the
          same time, it is very important that all ICANN members
          stay informed about current ICANN developments. Those who
          participate in meetings tend to be extremely well
          informed but they only represent a very small sample of
          the Internet community even when web-casting participants
          are included. Therefore it is critical to increase
          awareness in other ways such as making written materials
          available through various media.

          To expand awareness levels beyond what is possible in
          ICANN meetings, several awareness and outreach efforts
          have been organized around the world. These include
          workshops and seminars and other efforts such as the at
          large membership drive. Some of these are described
          below.

          5.1 Workshops and Seminars

          5.1.1 Berkman Center Workshops

          The Berkman Center at Harvard University held several
          ICANN related workshops in 1998 and 1999. It is expected
          that the Berkman Center will hold one workshop per year.
          Similar efforts by other organizations should be
          encouraged, especially outside of North America. The
          Berkman Center has web-cast all ICANN meetings in the
          past, not only providing the capability for remote
          participation in ICANN meetings but also providing audio
          and text archives of those meetings.

          5.1.2 ccTLD Joint Workshops

          The ccTLD constituency has sponsored Joint TLD Workshops
          starting from June 1999. The workshops have been
          self-supported with volunteer efforts. With better
          funding and staffing, these workshops could be enhanced
          and expanded.

          5.1.3 Regional ccTLD Workshops

          The Asia Pacific TLD organization (APTLD) and the Council
          of European National Top Level Domain Registries (CENTR)
          hold workshops several times a year. They cover various
          topics. Other regions such as Latin America(LACTLD) and 
          Africa(AFTLD) also hold workshops, but less often. 
          Cross-fertilizaiton among these workshop activities might 
          be useful.

          5.1.4 APTLD Internet Seminar Tour

          The APTLD in cooperation with the Asia Pacific Internet
          Association (APIA) established an Internet Seminar Tour
          in Asia in 1999, visiting five countries to give seminars
          on Internet governance and Y2K. Some of these countries
          formed committees and groups to work on Internet
          governance issues and to participate in ICANN activities.
          Three African countries were also visited in late 1999.

          To date in 2000, the seminars have been held in two
          additional countries and plans are in place to hold them
          in six more countries together with APNIC. The major
          issue being addressed in 2000 is ICANN participation
          through the at-large membership and other forums.

          The APTLD and the volunteers who serve as speakers have
          funded the seminar tour. The APTLD has paid speakers'
          airfare and the speakers donate their time. Local
          arrangements are handled by the hosting country
          organization. The APTLD set a goal to reach as many
          countries as possible in Asia. Education about ICANN
          activities could be expanded considerably if
          organizations in other parts of the world followed this
          same model.

          5.1.5 Harvard Internet Infrastructure Program

          Harvard Internet Infrastructure Program (HIIP) holds
          workshop once or twice a year on the Internet and Society
          as well as on other topics.

          5.1.6 Others

          Many countries offers seminars and workshops on the
          Internet governance and related subjects lately.  They
          include Germany, Japan, and Korea among others.

          5.2 ICANN At Large Membership Drive

          As stated on its website, "ICANN's goal is to enlist
          members of the Internet community in its consensus-based
          processes and supporting organizations, committees and
          working groups, including the At Large Membership. By
          joining the At Large Membership, [one] become[s] a part
          of ICANN's "bottom up" approach to making policy
          concerning Internet Names and Addresses."

          To achieve this goal as related to the At Large
          Membership, ICANN initially formed a Membership Advisory
          Committee (MAC). After the completion of the MAC's work,
          a Membership Implementation Task Force was formed that
          led to the current At Large Membership Drive.

          There are currently over 15,000 at large members, and
          ICANN expects to have between 20,000 and 30,000 when it
          closes the membership drive at the end of July 2000. A
          very high percentage of these members are from the
          developed countries, in particular from USA and Germany. 
          To achieve the goal of having good geographical diversity 
          as well as cultural diversity, particular efforts are 
          needed among developing and emerging countries as well as
          non-English speaking countries. Notable efforts have
          occurred in Asia where the membership drive has been a
          topic of focus in regional meetings being held there (see
          Section 5.1 above). Similar efforts are needed in other
          parts of the world including Central and South Asia,
          Latin America, Africa and Middle East.

          6. Level of Consensus Reached

          It is not possible to conclude that this report is based
          on the consensus of all participants of Working Group E.
          Nor would it be possible to objectively demonstrate that
          the recommendations in the report represent consensus
          positions of the Internet community as a whole. There are
          several reasons for this:
          - The number of participants in Working Group E was
          relatively small.
          - The success of getting Working Group E members to
          respond to calls for review of portions of the report was
          very unsatisfactory.
          - The topic of "Global Awareness and Outreach" was not one 
          that generated high interest.
          There was good participation in the Los Angeles and Cairo 
          Working Group E meeting and various members volunteered to 
          assist in working on the finalization of the report. But 
          very few of the volunteers were responsive after that 
          meeting.

          A case can be made that the topic of "Global Awareness and
          Outreach" is not well suited for a consensus-building
          approach. It seems reasonable to assume that a large
          majority of the community supports the need to reach out
          to as many people and organizations as possible to make
          them aware of ICANN activities and the importance of
          their participation.

          In the absence of a clear definition of consensus,
          Working Group E recommends to the DNSO Names Council that
          it review the report and determine if there is consensus
          support among NC members. If so, the report could then be
          given to the ICANN board for its consideration.

          A summary of Working Group activities including a list of
          participants listed by region is provided in Appendix.

          Appendix 1: Summary of DNSO WG-E Activities

          1999.06    WG-E Formation
          1999.08    WG-E Charter Statement
          1999.08    Santiago Meeting
          1999.10    Draft Overview Report
          1999.11    Los Angeles Meeting 
          2000.02    Final Overview Report
          2000.03    Cairo Meeting
          2000.06    Draft Final Report for Public Comment 
                     (Edited by Chuck Gomes and Kilnam Chon)
          2000.07    Final Report to DNSO (expected)

          All public comments and email exchanges are archived at
          www.dnso.org.

          Appendix 2: WG-E Member Distribution

          There are 40 members from the following regions:

          Africa           3
          Asia-Pacific    11
          Europe           7
          Latin America    2
          North America   17

- --
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, 21 Jun 2000 02:10:35 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting mechanisms

Michael Froomkin wrote:
> I think STV should be available for votes with multiple alternatives.
Eric Weisberg wrote:
> I strongly recommend the use of the IRV voting system.

Some background info:
IRV (Instant Runoff Vote) is also called Alternative Vote (AV)
and e.g. used in Australian House of Representatives elections. It
is a *majoritarian* electoral system for *single* seats. Like every
electoral system, AV has some advantages and some disadvantages,
both of which are explained at length in a study for the Australian
Electoral Commission. One of the drawbacks according to this
study is that it "can result in the election of the least unfavoured
rather than the most popular" choice.
http://www.aec.gov.au/pubs/electoral_systems.htm#majoritorian

In contrast, STV (Single Transferable Vote) is a *proportional
representation* electoral system for *multiple* seats. The main
rationale behind it is not to waste votes.
http://www.aec.gov.au/pubs/electoral_systems.htm#proportional

Harald Tveit Alvestrand's proposed voting rule 4 (the N top
candidates win) is called "Single Non-Transferable Vote" and
used in Japanese elections. It's a *plurality* electoral system for
*multiple* seats; a variation of First-Past-The-Post.
http://www.aec.gov.au/pubs/electoral_systems.htm#plurality

- --> So:
Obviously, there is no perfect (fair and simple) electoral system,
but in the case of selecting N candidates from a slate of M,
Alternative Vote (=IRV) is not a suitable choice. (And DNSO shouldn't
have *several* electoral systems at the same time -- let's make
it as straightforward as possible!) Please let's not recap the
19th and 20th century historical electoral systems discussion in its
entirety. Both STV and SNTV (+ eventually runoff) would do fine for
DNSO purposes, and both are easy to understand.

Regards,
/// Alexander Svensson

www.icannchannel.de

- --
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, 21 Jun 2000 02:34:04 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]

This is my concern.

If we start now a discussion (again?) on what is the *very best* (tm) 
method for voting on multiple choices, we are likely to achieve exactly 
what Prof. Froomkin fears, i.e. something that is interminable.

What we need is a simple bootstrap to get going.
Once bootstrapped, we can make the system stepwise more "accurate" (but 
also probably more "complicated").

Also, for the time being we don't have to deal with elections, where we 
will necessarily have to deal with multiple candidates, but with 
"proposals" or "statements", where with some good work in the prior 
discussion on the list we may be able to reduce the question to the 
electorate to a "Yes/No".

Will it be fair to say that for the time being we have the "simple" 
system, and that we have in the agenda the "revision" of this system 
during the next quarter?

As for the other objections, from Chuck, I agree on the fact that one 
week may be short.
About the "advance notice", I agree that a vote cannot come out of the 
blue without preparation and discussion. Will the discussion on the list
 on a specific subject be a sufficient "heads up" warning?
Practical example: we have been discussing about voting rules, list 
rules, membership, for months now. Will anybody be surprised if we call 
a vote? I think not. But people may find useful to have the final 
proposals "posted" for a (short) period of time before opening an 
official vote.

Can we have a sense of the audience on this?

Regards
Roberto
- --
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 21:18:33 -0400
From: George Kougias <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

It seems I have joined in the middle a voting process.  I would appreciate it
if someone from the group could email me directly, as to not disturb the
group, and fill me in as to what the discussion has been, and any other
pertinent information I may need to know.

Thank you,
George Kougias
[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, 21 Jun 2000 07:23:05 +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.
- --------------536E5A30A84BBFBA8A1AA767
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I think that was the point of STV, a simple, widely understood system.
No?
There is much discussion of this in the archives, from Dixon to
Fishkin's proposal.

Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> This is my concern.
> 
> If we start now a discussion (again?) on what is the *very best* (tm)
> method for voting on multiple choices, we are likely to achieve exactly
> what Prof. Froomkin fears, i.e. something that is interminable.
> 
> What we need is a simple bootstrap to get going.
> Once bootstrapped, we can make the system stepwise more "accurate" (but
> also probably more "complicated").
> 
> Also, for the time being we don't have to deal with elections, where we
> will necessarily have to deal with multiple candidates, but with
> "proposals" or "statements", where with some good work in the prior
> discussion on the list we may be able to reduce the question to the
> electorate to a "Yes/No".
> 
> Will it be fair to say that for the time being we have the "simple"
> system, and that we have in the agenda the "revision" of this system
> during the next quarter?
> 
> As for the other objections, from Chuck, I agree on the fact that one
> week may be short.
> About the "advance notice", I agree that a vote cannot come out of the
> blue without preparation and discussion. Will the discussion on the list
>  on a specific subject be a sufficient "heads up" warning?
> Practical example: we have been discussing about voting rules, list
> rules, membership, for months now. Will anybody be surprised if we call
> a vote? I think not. But people may find useful to have the final
> proposals "posted" for a (short) period of time before opening an
> official vote.
> 
> Can we have a sense of the audience on this?
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> --
> 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

- -- 
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
__________________________________________________________________________
- --------------536E5A30A84BBFBA8A1AA767
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

- --------------536E5A30A84BBFBA8A1AA767--

- --
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, 21 Jun 2000 08:44:18 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

At 07:35 20.06.2000 -0400, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>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.

It's a compromise - a month would give assurance that everyone got at least
3 chances to vote, but makes the GA unresponsive to demands for a timely 
opinion; a (working) day might be better in order to get business
transacted quickly - some have argued for the "vote early, vote often" 
school of discussion, where almost every decision, including the decision 
to have a decision, would be put to the vote.

>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."

Yes - the current vote was announced in February to be held in late April.
Quite a bit of advance notice there :-(
But the length of "reasonable warning" may vary from topic to topic - does 
this have to be in the rules?

>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."

I don't have a strong opinion here. In the case of a 3-way vote with a 
49/25/24% outcome, it seems like extra bureaucracy, but in the case of a 
34/33/33% outcome, it may be the Right Thing to do.
Others?

>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?"

After the latest discussion, I suggest rule 4 to be worded:
"This rule set deals only with single-winner votes."
Then we add rules for multiple-winner votes after finishing discussions on 
them.

Thanks for your comments!

                 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #86
***********************