From gds at alum.mit.edu  Sun Aug 20 16:18:08 2017
From: gds at alum.mit.edu (Greg Skinner)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 09:18:08 -0700
Subject: [Comments-aso-review-final-08aug17] Condorcet ranking methods
Message-ID: <04C79590-58B6-4088-9ECE-73E63584B5E2@alum.mit.edu>

The review of the ICANN ASO Final Report states:

7.3.3. New election procedures for seats 9 and 10

The latest changes to the ASO AC election rules were approved in June 2017 in reaction to the previous board seat election. This is an example of the ASO AC doing one of the MoU-prescribed roles, specifically; ?defining procedures for selection of individuals to serve on other ICANN bodies, in particular on the ICANN Board....?. While we have no basis upon which to judge these new rules (implementing a Schulze method of ranked voting, amongst other changes), we do see this as an example of a healthy, functioning ASO AC doing its job according to its mandate.

I would like to recommend two sources of information I have found very valuable in explaining and comparing the various Condorcet ranking methods (including Schulze):

Condorcet Internet Voting Service <http://civs.cs.cornell.edu/> (Cornell University)
Comparison of electoral systems <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_electoral_systems> (Wikipedia)

The CIVS can be used to run elections as well as to analyze election results.

Regards,
Greg
 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-aso-review-final-08aug17/attachments/20170820/c9aafc1a/attachment.html>