Status of the charter vote

[Dan Krimm]

Thanks for the comment.  I understand that all members are well qualified
to contribute to the group, and I admire and respect that expertise a
great deal.  What I hope is that members will indeed exercise that
opportunity to contribute, especially with regard to this important vote.

I think the issue here is that the group needs a very solid participation
rate in the vote in order for ICANN to respect the results of the vote as
representing the genuine wishes of the group as a whole.  If a highly
qualified person nominally joins up but then does not participate in group
activities, it may not serve the interests of the group particularly well.

As those who have worked so hard putting this charter together have
expressed, this is not some casual matter that can be ignored without
consequence.  Too many abstentions will have a negative impact on the
perception of the total result.  While an abstention in this case does not
necessarily represent a full "no" vote, it contributes to undermining the
perceived legitimacy of the final vote.

It's like "putting an asterisk next to the result" and suggesting some
doubt as to whether the group fully endorses its own collective proposal.

As a result, (non-)participation in this particular vote makes a
difference to the entire group, and so I'd encourage everyone to
participate.  It makes a difference to all if too many individuals don't
participate.   By joining a group, one balances individual interests with
the collective interests of the group, and I'd ask that individuals take
the collective group interests into account when making their individual
decisions.

My Draconian idea was not about intrinsic individual qualification, but
rather about willingness to engage the group process actively.  This group
will function better in ICANN's governance process if most of its members
have at least some minimum level of active engagement, and it seems to me
that participation in a vote on the fundamental charter of the group
itself would constitute such a minimum engagement.

If greatly qualified people can't even find the time to participate in
this vote, what expectation do we have that they would be able to
contribute in any other way in the future?

In my own case, I have hardly any time to participate substantively, other
than picking a few choice messages on this list to read (or skim) along
the way.  But, it was easy for me to find the time to cast my vote on this
charter.  That is the low-hanging fruit.

Best,
Dan


-- 
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and
do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



On Wed, May 26, 2010 3:08 am, MEDA Shefqet wrote:
> Dear Dan,
>
> I read your notice carefully even though I have been updated with all
> developments regarding the NCUC / NCSG.
> I must say that you discuss an issue that is closely linked with the act
> of
> establishing, that means NCUC/NCSG will be all-embracing or not. Regarding
> to this, I have followed all the comments and no one was in your context.
>
> I want to remember you that:
> -*Noncommercial Users-The Constituency (NCUC) is home for the Civil
> Society
> Organizations and individuals.*
> In this context, each of the members is best informed in its field. NCUC /
> NCSG have not yet initiate to seek contributions in the areas highlighted
> individuality of members. I had a chance to know some of the members and
> their contributions in these areas are to be admired.
>
> Responsibility to vote is an individual decision and each is responsible
> for
> its decisions.
>
>
> However, if you have the option to specify the criteria to enable an
> assessment to be served on the selection of membership, I will be
> agreeing.
>
> Let the time evaluate our opinions
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Dan Krimm <dan at musicunbound.com> wrote:
>
>> Carlos et al.,
>>
>> Since the voting system is separate from, for example, this email list,
>> it
>> may be that some people who are members are not recognizing those
>> messages
>> as connected with this group, especially some newer members.
>>
>> It's good to have lots of new members, but how many of them are actively
>> engaged?  Is there some minimum level of engagement that is useful for
>> membership?  (Case in point: I consider myself to be at the bare edge of
>> active enough engagement to qualify...)
>>
>> If you ever hold any stock in public companies, you may get "proxy vote"
>> forms for stockholder elections of board members, and many people just
>> toss them out, because those elections are often sort of rigged and the
>> choices are not significantly different.  And, there is no penalty to
>> the
>> corporation if stockholders don't vote.
>>
>> This is different, and it may be useful to underscore very prominently
>> that (1) this is coming from NCUC/NCSG at ICANN (I recognized it easily,
>> myself, but I'm not sure that everyone would), and (2) it is important
>> that a large majority of members participate in this vote on the charter
>> (I expect even a moderate number of 'no' votes is probably better than
>> large numbers of abstentions, but EC folks can confirm this or not).
>>
>> I don't know if it's better to have fewer members who are more actively
>> engaged or more members who are less actively engaged.  Would it make
>> any
>> sense to require a vote on the charter in order to retain membership?
>> That would be a rather Draconian policy, but I can envision
>> circumstances
>> where it might be appropriate.  I'm not sure that these circumstances
>> qualify as such, but perhaps something along these lines is worth
>> considering.
>>
>> If someone joined up and then never checked in, maybe this is not on
>> their
>> radar, and we shouldn't consider them genuinely participating members of
>> the group.  List-lurking may not be enough to qualify, on its own.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> --
>> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and
>> do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 1:16 pm, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>> > Grande Alex, if their emails are on the voters' list, they for sure
>> have
>> > received messages from the voting system with full instructions.
>> >
>> > abraço fraterno
>> >
>> > --c.a.
>> >
>> > Alex Gakuru wrote:
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> I hope Mr. James Wire (from Uganda), Madam Dorothy Gordon (Ghana) and
>> >> Mr. Zain Khan (Canada) cast their ballots? among others..
>> >>
>> >> kindly,
>> >>
>> >> Alex
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ltu.se> wrote:
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> Just got an update from the folks in Brazil running the vote on the
>> >>> charter.
>> >>>
>> >>>> - less than 27% of voters have voted so far
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - everyone should have received an automatic email from
>> >>>> <ncuc at registro.br> with a personalized URL to vote
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - a second reminder from the voting system (sender:
>> >>>> <ncuc at registro.br>)
>> >>>> has just been sent to all members who have not yet voted
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - if you have not voted, please do so now!
>> >>> If you feel you should have received a ballot and didn't please let
>> me
>> >>> know.
>> >>>
>> >>> For any new members - you did not receive a ballot as the vote is
>> only
>> >>> for those who had been members before the vote was initiated.
>> >>>
>> >>> a.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > Carlos A. Afonso
>> > CGI.br (www.cgi.br)
>> > Nupef (www.nupef.org.br)
>> > ====================================
>> > new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca
>> > ====================================
>> >
>>
>