Roberto and all, Freezing any DNSO List for any purpose is a stark violation of the White Paper and the MoU. I would recommend against such a measure on those grounds alone. SUch a suggestion would be paramount to desiring SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP and also seems very contrary to the discussions of WG-D as well as the "Reach Out" program that the ICANN is promoting. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > > > > Nii's proposal is a good one, but I think we couldn't > > possibly implement > > it before our deadline to send procedures to the NC > > *tomorrow*. > > I agree. > As I am convinced that the time scale will be important if we want to have a > GA Chair in this millennium ;>). > > The proposal(s) should be in by today, and I don't think that it will do any > good to ask the NC for delaying the deadline. > > > <snip> > > .... A suggestion > > was made on > > the NC list, and received significant support, that the NC would be > > satisfied with an approach under which the GA sent over a list of five > > names, along with endorsements. > > Indeed. > As you have put it already, the question was between three or five names, > anything below three being unacceptable, and anything over five exaggerated. > I was personally for three, but I'll take it back, and play it safe with > five. > > > <snip> > > ... The biggest problem, as I see it, is the one Kent > > has focused > > on: what do we do about fraudulent posts? > > > > There's another point we need to address before chasing fraudolent > "electors": who is qualified to be an elector? > The key points are: > 1. defining which lists are the basis for identification > 2. freezing the list(s) contents > > As for 1., I think it should be limited to GA-list + DNSO-announce. > The main task for the GA chair, as I see it, is to coordinate the activities > in the GA list, he/she will not have any power and/or responsibility in > relationship with WGs and Constituencies, and therefore I don't see the need > to make things more complicated including these lists as well. > > As for 2., I think that it is essential that the freezing date be *soon*, > ideally today, at the deadline for submission of proposals. Ideally, also, > the content of the list should be published by DNSO-Admin (concerns for > privacy?). > > > Here's an early draft of a proposal I'd like to send to > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] sometime tomorrow. It still needs a > > lot of work, I > > think, so I'd appreciate comments. > > > > 1. We announce a rule that only natural persons can vote in > > this process, > > and that no person can vote more than once. The NC appoints a small > > "poll-watching committee" from within the GA. > > > > 2. Nov 26 - Dec 2: any member of the GA can propose the name > > of one or more > > potential candidates for the office of GA chair. Any person > > whose name has > > been proposed has through Dec 3 to accept the nomination, and > > to file a > > statement explaining how he or she will carry out the job of > > chair, and > > setting out his or her views as to the GA's relationship with > > the NC and > > the constituencies, and its role in the DNSO. Any person who does not > > accept the nomination, and file the statement, by that > > deadline can't be > > considered. > > > > This will extend the deadline for election, but I agree, as I think it is > essential that the set of candidates be known before submission of > nominations. > > > 3. Dec 3-Dec. 10: each member of the GA can cast a vote for > > up to five > > folks on the list of potential candidates. > > > > 4. The poll-watching committee counts the votes, and > > assembles a list of > > the top 5 vote-getters. It also examines the votes cast, and makes a > > judgment whether there is a substantial possibility that any > > person on that > > list made it on only because of fraudulent votes (that is, > > votes cast by > > somebody participating multiple times under different names). > > Small disagreement. > > The polling committee can start looking for fishy situations already when > the lists are frozen. There will be nothing wrong in trying to start some > verifications even before the poll starts. > > I am here assuming that if there are people willing to stack the deck with > fake names/identities, it will be a small nmber of individuals, and that the > vast majority would like a democratic confrontation. > If this is not the reality in the GA, we may as well all go home and take > care of other businesses, becvause the situation will be hopeless. > > As a consequence, I am assuming that the majority would agree on some > "auditing" process (see, as a reference, the "auditing" performed in the > NCDNHC before acceptance of membership). > > > > If so, they > > add additional names to the list (starting with the person > > who received the > > sixth-largest number of votes, and so on) until it appears that the > > expanded list includes each of the five people who would have > > received the > > most votes absent fraudulent voting. They then send the > > expanded list to > > the NC, and send a statement to the NC and the GA explaining their > > conclusions and the bases for their actions. > > > > I tend to disagree with this. > I personally trust the NC, and therefore the "polling committee", but this > may not be a consensus in the GA. > There are people who would like to have democratic elections, and therefore > are against the fake votes, but who would not give the NC "additional power" > to extend the number of nominees in a way that may be felt as "arbitrary". > > I would like to be sure that there will be the need for such "exceptional" > measure, like, for instance, if the DNSO-Admin told us that the GA-list or > DNSO-announce has grown suspiciously in the last couple of weeks. > This also is another reason for freezing the contents of the list (I would > even endorse a "frozen date" in the past, for this matter). > > I hope it helps. > > Regards > Roberto Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
