Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #87
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, June 22 2000           Volume 01 : Number 087

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:53:44 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]

Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 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?

Absolutely. The electoral system will become more
elaborate as we proceed; we will have to see which
"add-ons" (against abuse? for urgent questions? etc.)
are needed -- and then take a vote. The v0.4 proposal
seems to be *a good choice to start with*.

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: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 07:22:43 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

- -----Original Message-----
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 2:44 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck; [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.

I would agree that a month is too long.  Two weeks seemed like a reasonable
compromise.

>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?

Why not have it in thre rules? That would prevent rushing a vote through and
thereby giving some participants less chance to participate.

>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?

49% is not consensus by most standards.

>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.

My point here was that there appeared to be an error.  Your previous wording
had "with N > M" which does not seem to make make sense.  It should be "with
M > N."  I did not have any problem with the basic concept.

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
- --
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 18:26:01 +0200 (MET DST)
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

Just one remark:

>
>>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?
>
>49% is not consensus by most standards.
>

Agree.
But what about the first case under discussion, which is to give 
ourselves rules on how to vote.
If we have three proposals, and they get 49/26/25, what should we do?
Shall we say that there's no consensus, and therefore we will never have
 a voting procedure?
Maybe in this case a good model will be to vote separately "Y/N" on each
 of the three, and pick the one that has more "Yes" (provided that the 
"Yes" are above 50%).

Fair enough?

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: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:57:42 -0700
From: "Roeland Meyer \(E-mail\)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

> 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.

I've been following this dicussion with some interest. I might
remind those present that there is a difference between polling
and voting, albeit minor.

- --
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 12:13:17 -0500
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------CF93B56C8E2AB1C248BFCF76
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> If we have three proposals, and they get 49/26/25, what should we do?
> Shall we say that there's no consensus, and therefore we will never have
>  a voting procedure?
> Maybe in this case a good model will be to vote separately "Y/N" on each
>  of the three, and pick the one that has more "Yes" (provided that the
> "Yes" are above 50%).
>
> Fair enough?

Please notice what we are doing.  First, we argue that there is no time to
discuss and implement the IRV (Instant Run-off Voting) system which address
such issues (not to mention STV to deal with multi-seat elections).  Then,
we propose other methods of doing so.  I move that we put all propositions
up for a vote using IRV and see what happens.

- --------------CF93B56C8E2AB1C248BFCF76
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

- --------------CF93B56C8E2AB1C248BFCF76--

- --
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 13:35:43 -0400
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

If we are truly looking for at least a minimal level of consensus, then it
seems to me that anything less than 50% support is too low for any final
decision, but if we are just talking about eliminating the least supported
propositions before a final vote that might be okay.  I think Roland made an
important distinction regarding the difference between voting and polling.
Voting rules in my opinion should be more stringent than polling rules.

If we cannot get at least 50% to support a particular proposal, then maybe
that proposal should not be put forward.  That in my mind is okay in a
consensus building process.

Chuck

- -----Original Message-----
From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 12:26 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

Just one remark:

>
>>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?
>
>49% is not consensus by most standards.
>

Agree.
But what about the first case under discussion, which is to give 
ourselves rules on how to vote.
If we have three proposals, and they get 49/26/25, what should we do?
Shall we say that there's no consensus, and therefore we will never have
 a voting procedure?
Maybe in this case a good model will be to vote separately "Y/N" on each
 of the three, and pick the one that has more "Yes" (provided that the 
"Yes" are above 50%).

Fair enough?

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
- --
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 10:56:27 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

Hello Roberto,

Wednesday, June 21, 2000, 9:26:01 AM, you wrote:
> Agree.
> But what about the first case under discussion, which is to give 
> ourselves rules on how to vote.
> If we have three proposals, and they get 49/26/25, what should we do?
> Shall we say that there's no consensus, and therefore we will never have
>  a voting procedure?
> Maybe in this case a good model will be to vote separately "Y/N" on each
>  of the three, and pick the one that has more "Yes" (provided that the 
> "Yes" are above 50%).

> Fair enough?

No, this method is very flawed.  People can vote yes for something
that they think is...a bare minimum acceptable, and it would win if
the most people thought that, even if the option that the most people
would PREFER has over 50% yes as well.  You end up with the less evil
rather than the most good.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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 12:24:14 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 10:56:27AM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> 
> No, this method is very flawed.

It is not any more flawed than any other voting system.

>  People can vote yes for something
> that they think is...a bare minimum acceptable, and it would win if
> the most people thought that, even if the option that the most people
> would PREFER has over 50% yes as well.  You end up with the less evil
> rather than the most good.

For example:

    Option A gets  65 yes, 35 no
    Option B gets  51 yes, 49 no
    Option C gets  20 yes, 80 no

You are claiming that there are some situations where Option B would be 
the "best" one, because it would be the "most good" instead of the 
"least evil".  I'm having trouble making any sense out of that.

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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 19:22:35 +0100
From: Michael Froomkin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]

It is formally correct that there is no perfecft voting system, just as
there is no perfect government.  There are also Much Better and Much
Worse systems for voting as well as government.  STV is Much Better;
first past the post, even with majority requirmenets, is Much Worse.

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> 
> 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.

I don't have my books to hand being on vacation, but I suspect that one
can prove that approval voting is actually MORE vulerable to tactical
voting than STV.  In STV you in effect "approve" of everything you vote
for (you can refuse to vote for some alternatives at all).  

> 
> 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?
> 

STV is described in the voting systems of most civilized nations and it
should be easy to crib from, say, the German (or Norwegian???)
constiution....

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

- -- 
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

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:28:21 +0100
From: Michael Froomkin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

I think that this proposal doesn't do it.  Even single-winner votes
should not be 'first-past the post' - if there are 5 candidates and we
want to achieve an outcome, votes which rank the choices are
preferable.  If you wish to also build in a 'satisfaction' requirment,
then you require that the outcome be listed by K% of the voters and
people chooose whether or not to list multiple preferences.... 

> "This rule set deals only with single-winner votes."
> Then we add rules for multiple-winner votes after finishing discussions on
> them.

> --
> 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

- -- 
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

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:49:20 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Call for comments on WG-E final report

[ To: [email-masked], [email-masked] ]
[ To: [email-masked] ]
[ To: WGs ]

[ from: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000621.NCwge-comments.html ]

ICANN/DNSO 

           Call for comments on WG-E final report 

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

21 June 2000

   In July 1999 the DNSO Names Council set up: 

   * Working Group E - Global Awareness and Outreach.

   For the last eleven months this working group have been discussing 
   various aspects of its assigned topics. 

   On 21 June 2000, the WG-E submitted its final report to the Names Council. 

   * http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000621.NCwge-report.html 

   The WG-E Final Report is open for three weeks public comments, 
   starting today 21 June 2000, ending 12 July 2000. 

   All comments shall be sent to [email-masked], no later 
   than 12 July 2000. 

   The archives for comments on the WG-E Report are on line at: 

   * http://www.dnso.org/dnso/dnsocomments/comments-wge/Arc00/maillist.html

   The full archives of the WG-E work are on line at:

   * http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-e/Archives/maillist.html

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

           Information from: © 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

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:17:28 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]

At 02:34 21/06/00 +0200, you 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").
>
Been there, done that.  Therefore I agree with Roberto's sentiment.

Having been vilified the first time for my offer of  the Polling Booth with
it's different voting options, I'm hesitant to offer it again. But it's
there and Harald and Roberto can have an administrator account if  they
feel it can be of use to the GA.

>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".
>
I constructed the Polling Booth specifically for this kind of group
decision-making.
The Booth will allow YES/NO votes, a pick-list with multiple tick options
(perfect for approval voting, Harald) , a pick-list with a single vote
option, sliding scale opinion polling,  voting results visible in real
- -time or not,  and an archive of all the votes taken.
It also has the option of allowing (anonymous) comment on the topic that's
up for a vote.

Striving for perfection at this stage is self-defeating.

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  

- --
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 18:03:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [ga-full] RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4]

Joop,

I too wrote an online polling/voting/comment gatering system, for the DNSO
before there was a DNSO or ICANN. I think several of us have atempted to
build and get folks to use such systems without much response.

I also did a bit of research into why folks never use our little automated
democracy machines or ADM ;-) It basicly comes down to user interface
issues, folks don't like to leave the "context" or user agent thay are in
(in this case the UA is the e-mail client.) Until we can demonstrate
support for both a web style and e-mail style UIs I doubt these voting
booths of ours will get much use.

- -rick
 
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> At 02:34 21/06/00 +0200, you 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").
> >
> Been there, done that.  Therefore I agree with Roberto's sentiment.
> 
> Having been vilified the first time for my offer of  the Polling Booth with
> it's different voting options, I'm hesitant to offer it again. But it's
> there and Harald and Roberto can have an administrator account if  they
> feel it can be of use to the GA.
> 
> >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".
> >
> I constructed the Polling Booth specifically for this kind of group
> decision-making.
> The Booth will allow YES/NO votes, a pick-list with multiple tick options
> (perfect for approval voting, Harald) , a pick-list with a single vote
> option, sliding scale opinion polling,  voting results visible in real
> -time or not,  and an archive of all the votes taken.
> It also has the option of allowing (anonymous) comment on the topic that's
> up for a vote.
> 
> Striving for perfection at this stage is self-defeating.
> 
> --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
> the Cyberspace Association and 
> the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> http://www.idno.org  
> 
> --
> 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: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:34:19 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

Hello Kent,

Wednesday, June 21, 2000, 12:24:14 PM, you wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 10:56:27AM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> 
>> No, this method is very flawed.

> It is not any more flawed than any other voting system.

>>  People can vote yes for something
>> that they think is...a bare minimum acceptable, and it would win if
>> the most people thought that, even if the option that the most people
>> would PREFER has over 50% yes as well.  You end up with the less evil
>> rather than the most good.

> For example:

>     Option A gets  65 yes, 35 no
>     Option B gets  51 yes, 49 no
>     Option C gets  20 yes, 80 no

> You are claiming that there are some situations where Option B would be 
> the "best" one, because it would be the "most good" instead of the 
> "least evil".  I'm having trouble making any sense out of that.

Things almost never end up that simple, Kent.

Most likely a better example of what I am saying is:

Option A gets 75 yes, 25 no
Option B gets 65 yes, 35 no
Option C gets 20 yes, 80 no

And where most of the votes for option A were by people who supported
Option B above all, but found Option C so reprehensible that they
voted for Option A as well as an alternative just in case, to block
Option C from being selected.

In that case, you have a situation where the consensus of hte group is
that Option B is the best choice and the consensus of the group, but
Option A was adopted because those who voted for Option B found it
palatable compared to Option C and there were a small number who
actually prefered Option A.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[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: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 01:14:04 -0400
From: George Kougias <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

The way around this is limit the number of votes to one vote per person
per
question/poll/seat/issue/etc..   then I would adopt an adaptation of the
third legacy rules of voting
(aka roberts rules of voting)

Simply put:

Winners must carry a 2/3 majority of the votes casted.  To do this, all
candidates are put on the ballot, after the first ballot any candidate
with over a 2/3 of the votes cast wins the seat.  If no candidate has
two thirds of the vote, then all candidates with less than 1/5th of the
cast votes are automatically dropped (the top two vote getters are
automatically retained for the next ballot)  This is continued until
someone gets two thirds of the vote, or until three ballots (possibly
four) have been done.  If after three or four votes, no candidate has a
majority of 2/3 of the vote then the candidate with the majority of
votes wins the seat.  If two seats are needed to be filled the top two
vote getters win the election.  etc.

In a case of two choices the a simple majority should win, with the
possibility of stating "provided 2/3 (or 1/2) of the registered voters
vote."

I grant this does draw the voting process out, but it also eliminates
most political advantages, as well as reasonably guarantees that the
best possible candidate has been elected into office.  This also
eliminates the "how many votes does each person get" question, they get
one per issue.  (which eliminates the ballots being stacked, someone
uses all their votes, someone else only uses one creating a distorted
vote)

George Kougias
[email-masked]
- -------------------------------------------------------------------

> Most likely a better example of what I am saying is:
>
> Option A gets 75 yes, 25 no
> Option B gets 65 yes, 35 no
> Option C gets 20 yes, 80 no
>
> And where most of the votes for option A were by people who supported
> Option B above all, but found Option C so reprehensible that they
> voted for Option A as well as an alternative just in case, to block
> Option C from being selected.
>
> In that case, you have a situation where the consensus of hte group is

> that Option B is the best choice and the consensus of the group, but
> Option A was adopted because those who voted for Option B found it
> palatable compared to Option C and there were a small number who
> actually prefered Option A.

- --
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 23:09:51 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 06:34:19PM -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
[...]
> Things almost never end up that simple, Kent.
> 
> Most likely a better example of what I am saying is:
> 
> Option A gets 75 yes, 25 no
> Option B gets 65 yes, 35 no
> Option C gets 20 yes, 80 no
> 
> And where most of the votes for option A were by people who supported
> Option B above all, but found Option C so reprehensible that they
> voted for Option A as well as an alternative just in case, to block
> Option C from being selected.

Sorry, still doesn't make sense.

> In that case, you have a situation where the consensus of hte group is
> that Option B is the best choice

"Consensus" as measured by what? Some other method of measuring opinion
- -- that is, some other voting system.  That is, you are putting an a
priori value on another method of group decision making, and using that
value to judge this method.  That is, your reasoning is circular.

To put it another way, a group might decide that "least evil" (to use 
your terminology) is actually to be preferred.

The voting method in question (Roberto's?) is one that selects the
option that the most people are willing to support.

> Option A was adopted because those who voted for Option B found it
> palatable compared to Option C and there were a small number who
> actually prefered Option A.

That is, the method makes it more difficult for a majority to impose 
their will...whether that is a flaw or a feature depends on a number of 
subjective factors...

- -- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
[email-masked]                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
- --
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 23:21:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Netsol To Auction Unpaid Domains (fwd)

FYI, saw this on domain-policy

- -----Original Message-----
From: Business Account [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 3:21 PM
Subject: Please Read: Important Announcement from NSI to Business
Account Members

> Dear Premier/Business Account Program Members:
>
> Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) is implementing a new practice that could
> eliminate, or at least reduce, the number of unpaid registrations that
> occur when your customers fail to pay for our domain name registration
> services.  As you are aware, pursuant to the terms of your
> Premier/Business Account Agreement with us, your customers must remit
> payments for our services in a timely manner for your account to remain in
> good standing.  Effective immediately, we are providing your domain name
> registration customers with an opportunity to satisfy their payment
> obligation to us by placing their delinquent registration in our new
> auction site.  If such actions result in a transfer to a new registrant
> through the auction site, the proceeds we receive from the transfer (up to
> the full amount of the registration fee) will be retained by us to satisfy
> your customer's registration fee.
>
> We believe this to be a sound and reasonable course of action for
> customers who register domain names, but refuse to pay for services
> rendered.  We also believe that these actions will alleviate the payment
> burden from our partners.  Generally, we have learned that if we have not
> been paid, it is likely that our partners have not either.
>
> So that you clearly understand the process leading up to this action we
> offer the following information:
>
> * We have sent the registrant three prior billing notices:
>   1. Original invoice
>   2. Late notice
>   3. Notice of deactivation
>
>   The customer has still not paid for our domain name
> registration services.
>
> * On Thursday, June 22, the administrative contact for such
> registrants will receive an e-mail from NSI requesting payment for such
> domain name(s).  This means that if a registrant has registered multiple
> domain names and has not paid for them, he/she will receive a separate
> e-mail for each unpaid name.
>
> * The administrative contact will be given three options.
>  1. Pay the registration fee electronically by June 28, 2000.
>  2. Instruct NSI to delete the name by June 28, 2000.
>  3. If the domain name is not paid for or is deleted by June 28,
> 2000, it will be entered on the NSI auction site.  Any proceeds from the
> sale of the name (up to the full amount of the registration fee) will be
> retained by NSI and the domain name will be transferred to the successful
> bidder.
>
> There will be no exceptions or exemptions from this e-mail as it is
> extremely important that these registrants be given one final chance to
> pay.
>
> We thank you for your cooperation.  Please direct any questions to your
> Partner Relations or Business Support team.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Thomas E. van Gorder
> Vice President, Sales and Business Development

- --
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 #87
***********************