Fwd: NCSG vote

[Nicolas Adam]

I'll second Dan's wonderfully practical and fair solution.

Nicolas

On 8/30/2011 6:35 PM, Dan Krimm wrote:
> On Tue, August 30, 2011 3:12 pm, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> 4. the Charter we just accepted says:
>>
>>> All NCSG votes will be held using an online voting system to be
>>> determined, approved and supervised by the NCSG-EC.
>> So we would need a charter amendment process to do this.
>>
>> But we do need to do something to ensure greater participation.
> As best I can tell from observation, the main problem was primarily a
> matter of individual active members not recognizing the balloting system
> for what it was -- some form of "technical" lack of capacity on their
> part.  So, I would try to address this head-on.
>
> If I were designing a "failsafe" method, I would require members to
> "check-in" with the online balloting system *itself*, directly, somehow,
> as a *requirement* to maintain active membership in the first place.
>
> This would presumably ensure that they have in fact "tooled up" with the
> individual capacity to recognize and respond to the balloting system, for
> when a live, time-constrained election comes around.
>
> That is, I would not use the SG and/or constituency e-lists for such
> communication; at least I wouldn't recognize such participation in any
> official/formal membership capacity.
>
> If we had problems getting people to check-in with the balloting system,
> then (1) we can focus on resolving those technical problems with those
> individuals, and (2) any such individual cases that are not in fact
> resolved at the time of an election would at least not threaten the voting
> requirements for the SG as a whole.  (It could erode the participatory
> representation of the group, to be sure, but that seems a lesser of evils
> as compared to whether the group "exists at all" in the ICANN system.)
>
> It's all about "critical pathways" in the design of the bureaucracy, and
> ensuring that such design is coherent and not potentially self-defeating.
>
> I don't know if such a process would require modifying anything in the
> charter, but if so I think we should figure out the best way to design the
> system and then modify the charter to match.
>
> Dan
>
>