[UA-discuss] UASG 2021 Elections - Process and Timeline

Charles 'chaals' (McCathie) Nevile chaals at yandex.ru
Sun Feb 21 13:48:22 UTC 2021


Agreed.

Cheers

On Sun, 21 Feb 2021 20:16:18 +1100, Jim DeLaHunt via UA-discuss  
<ua-discuss at icann.org> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>


-- 
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/


More information about the UA-discuss mailing list