[UA-discuss] UASG 2021 Elections - Process and Timeline
Jim DeLaHunt
list+uasg at jdlh.com
Sun Feb 7 08:41:19 UTC 2021
Mo:
Thank you for sending this out. It's good that we have a clearly stated
election process, and that the process be clear before we add the
specific candidates and opinions about which candidates to choose.
I have some suggestions about the elections process as stated in the
document you sent, /2021 UASG Election Process and Timeline
2021-02-04.pdf/ , section "2021 UASG Election Process".
1. The process does not state that how many Chairs and how many
Vice-Chairs are to be elected. Yes, the "UASG Structure" above says
that these numbers are "1" and "2-3" respectively. Still, for
clarity it seems good to state what the purpose of the process is. I
suggest adding an item before old #1, reading something like, "The
election will elect one Chair and [2-3 Vice-Chairs]".
2. The process does not state what kind of votes are cast and what
method is used to count votes. I support using the same methods as
last year, as described in
<https://uasg.tech/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Call-for-Nominations.pdf
<https://uasg.tech/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Call-for-Nominations.pdf>>,
namely preferential ballots, counted with Instant Runoff Voting for
the single Chair, and Scottish STV for the 2-3 Vice-Chairs. These
methods are among the best ways to elect single and multiple winners
for a group like UASG. I suggest adding between old #5 and #6,
something like: "For the single Chair position, voters will cast
preferential ballots ranking their choices, and the counting method
will be Instant Runoff Voting
<https://www.opavote.com/methods/instant-runoff-voting>", and "For
the 2-3 Vice-Chair positions, voters will cast preferential ballots
ranking their choices among all candidates, and the counting method
used will be Scottish STV
<https://www.opavote.com/methods/single-transferable-vote#scottish-stv>."
3. The process does not define how we will decide whether to elect 2 or
3 Vice-Chairs. There are several rules which we could use. We should
state what rule we will follow. I suggest adding it as part of the
entry for the Vice-Chair method above. Some rules we could use:
1. If there are 1, 2, or 3 candidates for Vice-Chair, they will all
be elected by acclamation and they will not be voted on.
2. If there are more than 3 candidates for Vice-Chair, they shall
be voted on and 3 shall be elected.
3. If there are more than 3 candidates for Vice-Chair, they shall
be voted on, and an option "Only 2 Vice-Chairs" shall be added
to the ballot. Voters may rank "Only 2 Vice-Chairs" the same way
as any other candidate. The top two candidates shall be elected.
If the option "Only 2 Vice-Chairs" is among the top three
finishers, there shall only be two Vice-Chairs, otherwise, there
shall be three Vice-Chairs, and the third-place candidate shall
also be elected. [Note: this curious option means that voters
who think some candidates are unsatisfactory, and a Vice-Chair
seat should be left empty rather than be filled by those
candidates, may rank "Only 2 Vice-Chairs" above the
unsatisfactory candidates, and the counting will respect their
wish to the extent possible.]
4. I have no problem with the diversity intent of rule # 4, but I think
it is a mistake to enforce this at the nomination stage. Suppose
there are two candidates in one organization, "M. Good" and "M.
Bad". Rule #4 says that M. Bad can prevent voters from supporting M.
Good by submitting their own self-nomination first! Instead I
suggest that we implement the rule at the vote-counting stage of the
Vice-Chair election. As soon as a candidate is elected during the
counting process, we disqualify all other candidates from the same
organization or company, and continue (or restart) the counting
process. This lets voters, not nominators, choose whether to support
"M. Good" or "M. Bad". There is no need for this diversity rule in
the Chair election, because only one Chair is elected. I suggest a
rule about eliminating Vice-Chair candidates during vote-counting be
added, and old rule #4 be deleted.
5. Rule #1 does not clearly say that sock-puppets are forbidden. It
should. By saying "the subscribers… are… the electorate", it
implies that email addresses, not natural people, are the
electorate. I suggest rewording it to say, "The electorate consists
of the natural persons subscribed to the UA-Discuss mailing list on
[the date of record for the electorate]. Each person may cast at
most one ballot. Sock puppets are forbidden."
6. Rule #8 addresses sock puppets as well. Move it to right after rule #1.
7. Rule #1 (and the Election Timeline below) are not clear about the
time at which the UASG-Discuss subscriber list creates the
electorate. Rule #1 says "the date of announcing the election". But
the Election Timeline puts the label "Announcing the starting of the
elections" onto a 10-day period. I suggest adding a separate entry
to the timeline, labelled something like "Date and time of record
for the electorate". Make it a specific UTC time; dates (interpreted
with time zones) can span 48 hours.
8. Rule #6 says the election process will be managed by a specialised
elections service provider. Who? Why not just say Opavote? And it
says, "the final results will be audited and confirmed." How? By whom?
9. I suggest adding a sentence to Rule #6. "A detailed report of the
vote counting steps, along with anonymised raw ballot data, shall be
published, for transparency and for community auditing." Opavote
provides reports and ballot data as a normal part of its service.
Also, a few comments about the Election Timeline:
1. Dates without times or time zones are ambiguous in a global
community. I suggest saying "all dates are UTC", or adding UTC times
to each date.
2. The voting period should have times and time zones added; dates
alone are too ambiguous. If the election starts at 00:00 5 March UTC
and ends at 23:59 15 March UTC, that is 11 days, not 10. If it
starts on 5 March anywhere in the world, and ends on 15 March
anywhere in the world, that is 12 days (00:00 5 March UTC-13:00 to
23:59 15 March UTC+12:00). Only if the election period is defined as
a specific time and time zone can it be unambiguously 10 days. The
voting period in days should match the duration between start and
end times.
3. Suggest adding a timeline entry, "Date and time of record for the
electorate". I would recommend it being the same time as the
self-nomination period begins, or when the list of candidates is
announced. There's a risk of a candidate packing the UA-Discuss with
their supporters. The choice of date and time of record can
encourage or discourage this.
I hope this is helpful. Can you tell I am interested in electoral process?
Best regards,
—Jim DeLaHunt, Vancouver, Canada
On 2021-02-04 12:37, Mohamed Elbashir wrote:
>
> Dear UA Community,
>
> Find attached the UASG 2021 elections process and timeline, it will be
> published on the UASG.tech website.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Best Regards,
>
> *Mohamed (Mo) Elbashir*
>
> Universal Acceptance (UA) Program Manager
>
> The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> /One World, One Internet/
>
> id:image001.png at 01D356F4.3F3911B0
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> UA-discuss mailing list
> UA-discuss at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ua-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
--
. --Jim DeLaHunt, jdlh at jdlh.com http://blog.jdlh.com/ (http://jdlh.com/)
multilingual websites consultant
2201-1000 Beach Ave, Vancouver BC V6E 4M2, Canada
Canada mobile +1-604-376-8953
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20210207/4a169010/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5436 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20210207/4a169010/image001.png>
More information about the UA-discuss
mailing list