On 19 July 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>The problem is that we were talking of the vote at IDNO as an example for
>the electronic vote for the elections of the ICANN Board.
>
>Maybe I should not, but I personally tend to care less about how an election
>in a working group is held, and more on how "the" ICANN election is held.
Fair enough. However, Kent is not only a member of the working group,
he's a candidate for the co-chair position, which will be chosen via
this election process (whatever it may be). Since he's talking about
what is and is not a good method for conducting such an election, I
find this interesting.
>
>Kent is stating that he would not consider Joop as a "trusted third party"
>for the ICANN Board election. If I interpret correctly your posting, I think
>that you don't consider Javier fit for the purpose either ;>).
>
It wasn't meant as an attack against Javier. I was merely pointing out
that Kent is a willing participant in a system that is the antithesis
of the one he proposes above.
Also, I thought that Kent's reference to Joop was specifically limited
to Joop's responsibility for the polling software currently in use to
elect committee members for the IDNO, and that Kent was exhibiting his
disapproval of Joop's hand in those elections. If I'm mistaken, I
apologize.
>Personal considerations aside, I think that we need to find a way that
>satisfies everybody, and that everybody can trust.
I agree wholeheartedly. I am very much in favor of using an outside
arbiter, such as the AAA, or any other nonpartisan, professional
third party. At this point, it's the best solution I've heard.
Anything less will only lead to dissatisfaction and recriminations from
one side or another.
--
Mark C. Langston Let your voice be heard:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
