Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #91
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Wednesday, June 28 2000           Volume 01 : Number 091

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:42:17 -0500
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Fwd: Re: I need your help]

Here is my exchange with Rob Richie of the Center for Voting and
Democracy regarding IRV and whether it is a fully developed system
which may be adopted by reference (thus avoiding any need to develop
a complete new ruleset if we wanted to use it).

- -------- Original Message --------
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: I need your help
To: [email-masked]
CC: Rob Richie <[email-masked]>

Rob,

Thanks for this information about IRV (which I am sharing with the
DNSO
General Assembly).

Rob Richie wrote:

> Eric,
>
> Thanks for writing.
>
> As to your question at the end of the message below: yes, IRV is
> a completely developed system. It is in editions of Robert Rule's
> of Order (termed "preferential voting"), and has been used for decades
> to elect the parliament of Australia and the presidency of Ireland,
> among other places.
>
> I am copying this message to Caleb Kleppner, who should be
> able to follow up with you on any specific questions you might have.
> Good luck.
>
> - Rob Richie, CVD
> ########
>
> I have proposed the use of IRV by an organization (the ICANN  Domain
> Name Supporting Organization General Assembly).  Here is the
> response from the Alternate Chair (who is running the discussion):
>
>      Eric,
>
>      the implications of your note disturb me.
>
>      The implications seem to me to be that:
>
>      - you have volunteered to write a complete description of
>      Instant Run-Off
>      Voting as applied to GA votes. Especially how to deal with
>      ties in the
>      number of votes for the alternatives that might be
>      considered for "losers",
>      which is the most obvious problem I found when considering
>      IRV.
>
>      - you have proposed delaying the vote on the ruleset
>      proposed until such a
>      description is written and agreed to.
>
>      To me, this delay, and the added complexity in the
>      ruleset, is an example
>      of the best being the enemy of the good.
>
> Is IRV a completely developed system which deals with all
> contingencies so that simple reference to that system is sufficient
> definition for incorporation in our governance procedure?
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:45:35 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Fwd: Re: I need your help]

Hello Weisberg,

Sunday, June 25, 2000, 3:42:17 PM, you wrote:

> Here is my exchange with Rob Richie of the Center for Voting and
> Democracy regarding IRV and whether it is a fully developed system
> which may be adopted by reference (thus avoiding any need to develop
> a complete new ruleset if we wanted to use it).

The point here, is that your method deserves much more review by
everyone, as do the alternatives.

Right now we need a simple method to deal with simple issues, and
there is absolutely no reason to delay in order to deal with this.

IRV and any other multiple choice voting method can wait and be
reviewed more carefully and discussed.

It may seem like an open and shut issue to you, but it is not for the
rest of us.

- -- 
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: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 21:05:40 -0500
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Fwd: Re: I need your help]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------6E570A18029E6ABBC83B1320
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

"William X. Walsh" wrote:.

>
> The point here, is that your method deserves much more review by
> everyone, as do the alternatives.

I can't follow this logic.  You want to us to choose an alternative
without the very review you say we need.   We should always review a
matter before voting.  That is why I suggested that we do so, here (I
offered a well known and understood procedure recognized by Robert's Rules
of Order).

There is no better time to engineer a foundation than when it is laid.  If
we were to write code the way we design our decision making processes, it
would not pass muster.

- --------------6E570A18029E6ABBC83B1320
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

- --------------6E570A18029E6ABBC83B1320--

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

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 22:52:55 -0700
From: Kent Crispin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Fwd: Re: I need your help]

On Sun, Jun 25, 2000 at 09:05:40PM -0500, Weisberg wrote:
> There is no better time to engineer a foundation than when it is laid.  If
> we were to write code the way we design our decision making processes, it
> would not pass muster.

This is bogus.  By objective sofware metrics, one of the very best code
development methodologies is rapid prototyping.  Most of the most
important software products in existence started from prototypes.  Every
signigicant software product goes through many revisions.  Stepwise
refinement is completely standard design/implementation practice.  
That's why we have alpha and beta releases.  That's why we have version 
numbers. 

- -- 
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: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 08:05:24 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Fwd: Re: I need your help]

At 17:42 25.06.2000 -0500, Weisberg wrote:
>Here is my exchange with Rob Richie of the Center for Voting and
>Democracy regarding IRV and whether it is a fully developed system
>which may be adopted by reference (thus avoiding any need to develop
>a complete new ruleset if we wanted to use it).

I don't think you understand - it is impossible to vote on including 
something by reference without a *specific reference*.
My only online Robert's rules 
(http://www.constitution.org/rror/rror--00.htm, 1915 edition) does not 
contain the term "preferential" in the chapter on voting, so we obviously 
can't use that.

References into other bodies' rulesets tend to be dangerous, because they 
contain further references; for instance, one may refer to a ruleset that 
requires party representatives to be present at the counting of ballots - 
we don't have parties in the GA, and don't go in very much for physical 
presence - how would we use that rule by reference?
Without a specific proposal, we can't even *start* intelligent debate, far 
less vote on it.

Anyway, the chair has called for a vote on the current proposal. Let's get
that out of the way now.

                      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: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 08:28:09 -0500
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [Fwd: Re: I need your help]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------28379DC59131B26CE0F06F3D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kent Crispin wrote:

> By objective sofware metrics, one of the very best code development
> methodologies is rapid prototyping.

True.  I should have stayed with bricks and mortar!

- --------------28379DC59131B26CE0F06F3D
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

- --------------28379DC59131B26CE0F06F3D--

- --
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, 26 Jun 2000 13:52:10 -0500
From: Weisberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] On rapid prototyping

Someone who is following this discussion but apparently does not
want to make a  "public appearance" wrote:

> Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> > By objective sofware metrics, one of the very best code development
> > methodologies is rapid prototyping.
> 
> True.  I should have stayed with bricks and mortar!

"...[C]omparing the analysis of voting systems
to code development is without demonstrated relevance.

(And I consider rapid prototyping to often be a bad technique -
sometimes
thoughtful pre-analysis is important.)"
- --
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, 26 Jun 2000 15:46:53 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

	I've been letting my email slide, but I sat down today and read the entire
[ga] voting thread.  Some thoughts:

	1. It's not well taken, I think, to tell Eric that we can ignore his
proposals aside in passing version 1.0 now, and that he should put them
forward as proposals for version 1.1.  The reason is that Harald's ruleset
includes a provision designed to make the rules *hard* to change in
subsequent versions -- it provides that the rules cannot be changed, once
adopted, without a supermajority and a special quorum.  The point of
Harald's Rule 5 is to promote stability by requiring that even proposed
changes *with the support of a majority of the membership* cannot be
enacted unless they surmount the 2/3 hurdle.  So this is the last time that
competing proposals will contend on a level playing field; once we first
adopt a ruleset, whatever we have already adopted will have a huge
procedural advantage over any proposed changes.  As a result, it's worth
focusing on Eric's proposal now.

	2. I think people aren't paying enough attention to the differences
between candidate elections and issue elections.  There are good arguments
for having fancy voting rules in candidate elections.  The argument for
having elaborate procedures to compute preferences in issue ballots is much
weaker, b/c the prime source of manipulation of those ballots has nothing
to do with vote counting -- it comes in the decisions as to how to present
the various alternatives for voting.  It's silly to give the chair broad
power to word the proposals being presented to the electorate and then
adopt elaborate procedures for counting the votes.  To address the fear
that the chair will manipulate issue ballots, you need something like
Roberts' Rules (which have their own problems, and which I'm not
advocating), not vote-counting mechanisms.  In any event, I don't think IRV
is especially useful for issue ballots, in part because it's designed to
produce a "winner" no matter how splintered voter preferences are.

	3. So what's the best approach for single-member candidate elections?
Harald has proposed that if a candidate gets 50%, he or she wins;
otherwise, there will be a runoff with a smaller number of candidates, so
that someone can get 50% in the smaller field.  Eric has proposed that if a
candidate gets 50%, he or she wins; otherwise, the IRV vote-counting
mechanism will simulate a runoff with one fewer candidate, so that someone
can get 50% in the smaller field (and it will iterate this until the
simulated runoff really does give somebody 50%).

	The most striking thing about these proposals is how alike they are.  They
differ in two ways.  [1] Under Harald's proposal, the chair has more
discretion as to how to structure the runoff.  For example, he might choose
to eliminate several candidates at once, rather than holding sequential
runoffs eliminating them one at a time.  The IRV mechanism, by contrast, is
mechanical.  [2] Under Harald's proposal, we actually have to hold repeated
elections.  IRV, on the other hand, requires only one ballot, and simulates
all necessary runoffs.  I think each of these proposals has advantages.  I
expect that either would probably be fine.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[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: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 21:59:40 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

At 15:46 26.06.2000 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>         I've been letting my email slide, but I sat down today and read 
> the entire
>[ga] voting thread.  Some thoughts:
>
>         1. It's not well taken, I think, to tell Eric that we can ignore his
>proposals aside in passing version 1.0 now, and that he should put them
>forward as proposals for version 1.1.  The reason is that Harald's ruleset
>includes a provision designed to make the rules *hard* to change in
>subsequent versions -- it provides that the rules cannot be changed, once
>adopted, without a supermajority and a special quorum.  The point of
>Harald's Rule 5 is to promote stability by requiring that even proposed
>changes *with the support of a majority of the membership* cannot be
>enacted unless they surmount the 2/3 hurdle.  So this is the last time that
>competing proposals will contend on a level playing field; once we first
>adopt a ruleset, whatever we have already adopted will have a huge
>procedural advantage over any proposed changes.  As a result, it's worth
>focusing on Eric's proposal now.

I intend to declare defeat and go home if the current proposal does not 
surmount the 2/3 + quorum hurdle.

                     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: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:57:00 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Alejandro Pisanty, CUAED + FQ, UNAM" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

Dear Harald,

count my vote FOR and I hope we ARE over the 2/3.

Alx

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty 
UNAM  -  Educacion Abierta y a Distancia
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
Tel. (+52-5) 622-8713, 622-8633 Fax 550-8405

Visite www.walc2000.unam.mx, Taller de Redes e Internet para America
Latina y el Caribe, julio de 2000
Visite www.isocmex.org.mx, Internet Society Mexico
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

- --
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, 26 Jun 2000 16:38:07 -0400
From: Theresa Swinehart <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

Likewise, I vote FOR and hope we're over the 2/3

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf 
> Of Alejandro
> Pisanty, CUAED + FQ, UNAM
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 3:57 PM
> To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand
> Cc: Jonathan Weinberg; [email-masked]; Weisberg
> Subject: Re: [ga] Voting rules, take 4
> 
> 
> Dear Harald,
> 
> count my vote FOR and I hope we ARE over the 2/3.
> 
> Alx
> 
> 
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 
>  .  .  .  .  .
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty 
> UNAM  -  Educacion Abierta y a Distancia
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> Tel. (+52-5) 622-8713, 622-8633 Fax 550-8405
> 
> Visite www.walc2000.unam.mx, Taller de Redes e Internet para America
> Latina y el Caribe, julio de 2000
> Visite www.isocmex.org.mx, Internet Society Mexico
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  . 
>  .  .  .  .  .
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:58:46 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting rules, take 4

	I'm going to vote for Harald's proposal myself.  But I'm doing so on the
basis of having examined the alternative Eric put forward, and having
concluded (as I explained in the snipped portion of my message) that I
think IRV would be misplaced for issue ballots, and is not too different
from Harald's proposal for candidate elections.  I appreciate the effort
Harald has put in, but we need to vote based on our views of the merits,
rather than simply concluding that we're too fatigued to do anything other
than approve whatever's on the table.

Jon

At 09:59 PM 6/26/00 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>At 15:46 26.06.2000 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>>         I've been letting my email slide, but I sat down today and read 
>> the entire
>>[ga] voting thread.  Some thoughts:
>>
>>         1. It's not well taken, I think, to tell Eric that we can ignore
his
>>proposals aside in passing version 1.0 now, and that he should put them
>>forward as proposals for version 1.1.  The reason is that Harald's ruleset
>>includes a provision designed to make the rules *hard* to change in
>>subsequent versions -- it provides that the rules cannot be changed, once
>>adopted, without a supermajority and a special quorum.  The point of
>>Harald's Rule 5 is to promote stability by requiring that even proposed
>>changes *with the support of a majority of the membership* cannot be
>>enacted unless they surmount the 2/3 hurdle.  So this is the last time that
>>competing proposals will contend on a level playing field; once we first
>>adopt a ruleset, whatever we have already adopted will have a huge
>>procedural advantage over any proposed changes.  As a result, it's worth
>>focusing on Eric's proposal now.
>
>I intend to declare defeat and go home if the current proposal does not 
>surmount the 2/3 + quorum hurdle.
>
>                     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, 27 Jun 2000 00:16:58 +0200 (MET DST)
From: DNSO Secretariat <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Basic outline of the DNSO GA voting process

26 June 2000

BASIC OUTLINE OF THE DNSO GA VOTING PROCESS 

1.  A ballot is prepared. 

    A ballot starts with line "BEGIN" and ends with line "END__". 

    It is like this: 

 BEGIN:b01:KabcdZ:FirstName_LastName:[email-masked]:SVP-reply
 b01:KabcdZ:[ ] I want the voting rules at www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html to be approved
 b01:KabcdZ:[ ] I do not want the voting rules at www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html to be approved
 END__:b01:KabcdZ:FirstName_LastName:[email-masked]:SVP-reply

2.  Ballot is assigned a number (first field in a line), here "b01" 
    -- ballot number 01. 

3.  Ballot is personalised. Each line indicates who is voting. 

4.  The second field, here between "b01" and "FirstName_LastName",
    indicate a personalised code given for this ballot to this person. 
    A personalised code is 6 caracteres, starting with "K", 
    ending with "Z", here "KabcdZ". 

5.  Do not edit a ballot. Just put an "X" between square brackets 
    [ ] if you give your vote to a statement written in a line. 

    You cast one vote, no more. 

6.  A ballot will arrive From: "[email-masked]" -- please reply 
    without CC to any list. 

7.  You will receive an aknowledge of your ballot within 48 hours.

8.  Time for the startup vote

      * Begins: Monday 26 June 22:00 UTC 
        (15:00 LA, 18:00 New York, 24:00 Paris, 07:00 next day Tokyo) 

      * Ends: Wednesday 05 July 22:00 UTC 
        (15:00 LA, 18:00 New York, 24:00 Paris, 07:00 next day Tokyo) 

9.  Voting rules submitted for the startup vote 
    http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-voting-rules.html 

10. Voting roster http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/rosterindex.html 

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: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 21:29:38 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Voting rules

	FYI --

	The ICANN Elections Committee has recommended that ICANN use IRV for
electing the five at-large directors.  (The committee refers to this as
"Alternative Vote," but it's the same system.)

Jon
- --
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 #91
***********************