Fwd: NCSG vote

[Nicolas Adam]

It strike me, to the contrary, that we should have had a much higher
turnout than we eventually did. I thought the checking-in was a great
idea/system, although i concede i was a little bit puzzled by the
check-in mail when i first got it.

The fact that a significant proportion of people would respond to a
"check-in" and not a "vote", while the latter is considerably more
eye-catching a term, was not something i considered probable. Especially
given that they were sent out in such a short time span.

I'm afraid I have no theory as to what could have happened, except maybe
for the one that points to misunderstanding of voting methodology (?and
subsequent blindness to repeated step-by-step instructions as to how to
proceed?).

Perhaps we could send out an anonymized survey to everyone that
checked-in but did not vote, in order to glean some info as to the
reasons it went out like that. Here's a few scenario that may account
for some people's no-show:

-- didn't realize that not voting was voting no and wanted to refrain
from voting for some reason
-- realized that not voting was voting no but still preferred that way
of saying no despite Timothe's well thought out plea to the contrary
-- didn't read their NCSG emails with attention or at all during the
critical period
-- couldn't understand how to vote


Nicolas



On 8/30/2011 10:02 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> This election turn-out is actually quite in-line with democracy
> generally - or perhaps a bit better.
>
> For example, in recent federal election, the voter turn-out in
> California was only 23% of eligible voters.  That's common.
>
> Low voter turn-out is not a problem that is unique to NCSG.
>
> However, let's not let that stop us from trying to figure out how to
> achieve greater participation from the entire membership.  :-)
>
> Thanks to all for this achievement!
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 30, 2011, at 6:45 PM, nhklein wrote:
>
>> On 08/31/2011 03:38 AM, Ron Wickersham wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>
>>> For
>>> future on votes of this importance (an issue that would make/break
>>> the exisistence of the NCSG)*i would suggest we ask that paper
>>> ballots be mailed* to the eligible voters.  This is no small task or
>>> expense, but pales with the expenses ICANN incurrs in holding the
>>> board meetings around the workd and other routine expenses.
>>>
>>> -ron
>> *
>> Please don't* - e-mail I get immediately, paper mail about once a
>> week, mostly useless advertisements etc. - too difficult to sort out
>> if there is occasionally something important.
>>
>> If someone cannot handle e-mail - are they able to actively analyze
>> the questions we as non-commercials, are facing in ICANN?
>>
>> The poor participation of the "active" membership in the election
>> requires some soul searching about the non-commercial public's
>> interest and commitment to get and to be involved. The Intellectual
>> Property lobby have their interest, so they act.
>>
>> The 61.9% is not the result of poor technology - especially
>> considering the huge "management" input by Avri.
>>
>>
>> Norbert
>> --
>> A while ago, I started a new blog:
>>
>> ...thinking it over... after 21 years in Cambodia
>> http://www.thinking21.org/
>>
>> continuing to share reports and comments from Cambodia.
>>
>> Norbert Klein
>> nhklein at gmx.net
>> Phnom Penh / Cambodia
>>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20110830/d175c07d/attachment-0001.html>