[UA-discuss] UASG 2021 Elections - Process and Timeline
Jim DeLaHunt
list+uasg at jdlh.com
Sun Feb 21 09:16:18 UTC 2021
Chaals:
> …I support all the suggestions Jim made…
Thank you!
> …I have a preference for Meek STV rather than Scottish STV…
Yes, so do I. But the published Election Process did not mention any
counting method at all, so my first priority is to get the Election
Process to be clear that we will use some form of Single Transferable
Vote (STV) over other, less satisfactory, methods of counting. The
published method last time was Scottish STV, so the baseline is that we
use the same method as last election.
But yes, there are many varieties of Single Transferable Vote, each with
their details. Some are slightly better than others for our purposes. If
we can choose among varieties of STV, I'm happy to have that discussion.
But first, let's be clear that we are using STV rather than not-STV.
Best regards,
—Jim DeLaHunt, Vancouver, Canada
On 2021-02-07 22:17, Charles 'chaals' (McCathie) Nevile wrote:
> Thank you Mo, Jim.
>
> I have a preference for Meek STV rather than Scottish STV, but I support
> all the suggestions Jim made - in particular his "curious option" to
> include allowing a vote for "only 2 vice-chairs".
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> On Sun, 07 Feb 2021 19:41:19 +1100, Jim DeLaHunt <list+uasg at jdlh.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> 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>,
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
. --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
More information about the UA-discuss
mailing list