On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Milton Mueller wrote:
> Dany:
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> Comments below. Bottom line: I cannot accept your proposal for Adcom
> replacement unless it is modified in some way to meet the objections set out
> below. We all agree, I'm sure, that the charter committee should go back to
> the constituency unified. We don't want to have to debate these issues on
> the list. So let's try to find some mutually acceptable compromise.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dany Vandromme"
>
> > -
> > I saw the difference between the alternate and the replacement. My feeling
> > is that, for a fair vote, all candidature should be equivalent.
> > If some ballot have 2 names rather than one, the result will be affected
> > anyway by the combination effect (that effect can be + or -), depending if
> > the second name will attract or repulse. I am sure that a second name will
> > not be neutral.
>
> The "Adcom" replacement method means is that voters have no idea who will
> replace the person they vote for. That is much worse, in my opinion. It is
> certainly less fair.
-
No. Any voter will have the insurance that, even the interim rep will be
issued from the election process. Each voter votes for 1 rep, same for all
voters of the constituency. The result is the expression of the
constituency.
-
>
> > Second, having some ballot with two names and others with one name is not
> > fair, even if the second name is not mandatory. I understand that your
>
> I see no "unfairness." Everyone has the same chance to put forward a
> replacement candidate. If they choose not to, it is their choice, and voters
> can take this into consideration. How is this unfair?
-
May-be I should have used the word "equity" rather than fairness (which
may be perceived as too aggressive.
I still disagree with you on that. To have or not a "replacement" is not
seen as the same chance for everyone. Ask Zakarya for instance, whether it
is as trivial for AF than for NA to go that way!
-
>
> > Last, your proposal will induce an over representation of the 2-names
> > region (not in the NC meeting, since we are talking of replacement
> > proposal) in the running of the constituency.
>
> No. This is just mistaken on your part. The replacement candidate is not a
> formal member of Adcom. See the charter. And besides, as you have noted to
> me, anyone can volunteer to be on any committee, and to participate in Adcom
> meetings. So if there are two "activists" from one region, that region may
> be "overrepresented" with or without this proposal.
>
> Just to show you how meaningless this objection is, both Kent and I are from
> the same region. We are both active in Adcom meetings. And yet, we have very
> different ideas, and we represent very different groups. So what does it
> mean, that NA is "overrepresented?" And does it make any difference whether
> or not either of us is a replacement candidate? Both of us will be active
> regardless.
-
That's different. Neither Kent nor you are in the AdCom. It is fortunate
that you participate also to the AdCom discussions on a voluntary basis,
with strongly different opinions.
-
>
> > I keep a strong preference for using the next adcom member as interim,
> > before organizing a new election, in which the second has a good chance to
> > be elected, if he has shown a good voice, presence and activity as a
> > regular member of the constituency.
>
> Let me outline some of the problems with this method. I don't think they
> have been discussed enough.
>
> First, when you have a replacement election, it means that people from other
> regions already represented on the NC play an unusually large, and unfair
> role in selecting the candidate from the unrepresented region. Here's an
> example. NCC has a majority of Asia-Pacific organizations. But YJ is already
> elected to NC so all those people cannot vote for an AP candidate. That
> means they will play an overwhelming role in selecting the EU, LAC and NA
> candidates. Unless there is a replacement candidate, replacement elections
> completely redistribute voter power within the constituency.
-
NO, it is a chance for the constituency, that everyone may vote for any
candidate. If the votes were confined to the geo regions, we should not
need to vote. We should only count the memberships and only the first
three regions would have a permanent seat in the NC.
With the vote process, a candidate has the possibility to convince voters
from other regions that he may be a better rep than others. The
geographical diversity is applied on the result of the vote, not on the
vote itself, hopefully.
Do not forget that the vote is destinated to bring up representatives of
the whole constituency, not of a specific geo region.
-
>
> Second, one consequence of the above is that people who should resign may
> not resign, in order to avoid the loss of power or position. Kathy was
> willing to resign because she knew she was not capable of meeting the
> obligations and thought I would replace her. It would have been pretty easy
> just to hang on to the position. I am not saying that she would do that, but
> lots of people might do it. And that is definitely bad for the NCC. People
> who are unable to perform should resign immediately, and the replacement
> system makes it more likely that they will do so.
-
Ethical vs strategical problems only
-
>
> Third: YJ got over 40 votes in the last election. You, Dany, as next in line
> in Adcom, got 18 votes from completely different people. If YJ resigned,
> someone who got less than half as many votes from completely different
> people takes her seat on the NC. This just doesn't seem right to me.
> However, if YJ and her constituency don't care, and YJ runs for election
> without a replacement candidate, then it is ok, because her voters know that
> she will be replaced by the next Adcom member in the event of a resignation.
> So my proposal just gives constituency members more consistent
> representation.
>
> So I cannot accept the Adcom replacement method. Let's come up with a
> compromise.
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dany VANDROMME | Directeur du GIP RENATER
Reseau National de Telecommunications
pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche
| ENSAM
Tel : +33 (0)1 53 94 20 30 | 151 Boulevard de l'Hopital
Fax : +33 (0)1 53 94 20 31 | 75013 Paris
E-mail: Dany.Vandromme@renater.fr | FRANCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 20 2000 - 01:03:58 PDT