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

[Jeff Williams]

Karl and all stakeholders or interested parties,

Karl Auerbach wrote:

> 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.

  Yes.  But not the personal information that those rolls might contain...

>
>
> 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.

  We are not supporters of the STV method.  It is too contrived and subject
to various perversions...

>
>
> 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.

  This will and does happen anyway.  It is not necessary IMHO to make it
a part of policy.

>
>
> That raises an interesting question:  Those who argue against the
> membership lists being available claim that they are protecting privacy.

  Yes.  But not whom is a member but what other information those rolls
might contain.

>
> 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?

 Yes it is.

>
>
> > 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--

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208