Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: Another model to consider

[Karl Auerbach]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 Christian.Ahlert@sowi.uni-giessen.de wrote:

> Karl:
>
> When you say "make the full list" available, do you envision that
> everybodies address, name etc. who actually voted, would be
> published? Before, or after the election?

In order to be useful, the membership rolls need to be available pretty
much at all times.

Certainly before an election it is necessary for the voters to discuss
issues.  And with voting systems such as STV or Instant Runnoff Voting
voting strategy becomes important.  For instance, in the previous ICANN
election, three of the candidates (myself being one of them) had
relatively similar platforms that varied mainly in emphasis.  We worked
together and tried to convince voters that when they voted they should
vote for all three of us in their chosen rank order without any other name
intervening on their ballot.  In the STV system that was used, such a
voting strategy essentially cumulated the votes for "our party" so that
our subtle individual differences wouldn't divide the electorate who
wanted our common platform.  This was a voting strategy suggested by the
candidates, but such strategies can be readily worked out by the electors
themselves.

As for those inter-election periods - we must remember that membership is
more than voting.  The members need to be able to reach one another at all
times to determine whether and how they may wish to exercise those
options.  For example, a common member right is the ability to examine the
finances (this is not universally accorded, I'm using it as an example) -
and it isn't inexpensive to hire an auditor to go over the books, so it is
useful for members to try to work together to cover the expenses.

Similarly, if one considers membership as a vehicle for creation of policy
groundswells, then the members need to be able to talk among themselves to
work out positions.  And this kind of conversation often needs the
protective cloak of of being non-public in order for people to reach
compromises.

That raises an interesting question:  Those who argue against the
membership lists being available claim that they are protecting privacy.
But in the ICANN approach, with all communications being in the open and
public, isn't that violating the privacy of those who wish to suggest
compromises and to discuss the weakness as well as the strengths of their
positions?

> Could publishing the list not be a means to make the election more
> secure? I believe so.

I'm not getting the meaning of your suggestion.  Could you give me an
example?

		--karl--