Discussion: Address Council election procedures
On the topic of
Call for Nominations for Representatives to the ASO Address Council - RIPE NCC Region
We have a some desicions to make at the upcoming meeting on - when to do the elections - how to do the elections
4. Address Council Nominations Process (...) Nominations should be sent by email to <nominations@ripe.net>, by midnight CET on 30 September 2000. (...)
5. Address Council Selection Process - ------------------------------------
The process for selection of the nominee to serve on the Address Council will involve an open election. Due to the 90 day lead time needed for a call for nominations prior to a RIPE NCC region policy meeting, the selection process will not be held at the RIPE 37 meeting, 12-15 September 2000, in Amsterdam.
Two selection processes have been proposed. The first follows the voting process outlined in the MoU. The selection procedure would take place at
Due to the timeconstraints we unfortunately have ended up with we cannot hold the election at RIPE 37 but will have to do it at a later stage. We can either delay the election to RIPE 38 next year, or we can do some sort of electronic voting between the RIPE meeting and the to ICANN meeting in november (as the ICANN meeting in november would be a convenient place gather the Address Council for a meeting to hand over responsibilities from the 3 members potentialy leaving their seats.) My understanding of the consensus from the previous meetings was that electronic voting was felt to be not yet widely deployable technology. But we may want to reconcider that with experiences from the ICANN at large election and perhaps from ARINs and APNICs plans. the
RIPE 38 meeting in January 2001 in Amsterdam. The second process currently being discussed involves implementing an electronic voting procedure as it would allow for more participation in the selection process and could bring the process forward. This procedure would be discussed prior to the RIPE 37 meeting and announced in the LIR-WG meeting. Hans Petter Holen, LIR-WG Chair, will initiate discussions about this procedure on the lir-wg mailing list.
Important Dates:
30 September 2000 - deadline for Address Council nominations
Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen lir-wg chair
In message <002801c01cb0$8e702570$a20400c1@hph>, "Hans Petter Holen" writes:
My understanding of the consensus from the previous meetings was that electronic voting was felt to be not yet widely deployable technology. But we may want to reconcider that with experiences from the ICANN at large election and perhaps from ARINs and APNICs plans.
I would actually argue that electronic voting is preferred because it will allow people unable to participate in RIPE meetings to vote as well. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
My understanding of the consensus from the previous meetings was that electronic voting was felt to be not yet widely deployable technology. But we may want to reconcider that with experiences from the ICANN at large election and perhaps from ARINs and APNICs plans.
I would actually argue that electronic voting is preferred because it will allow people unable to participate in RIPE meetings to vote as well.
I agree with you but the trouble we ran into when discussiong this at a previous meeting was that it is easy to define the electorate (who gets to vote) if we do the voting at a meeting; then we have an open meeting for anyone to participate, and thoose present may vote (with the restrictions set forth in bylaws and MoUs preventing RIPE NCC staff to do so.) If we should go for electronic voting, we could either stay OPEN and allow anyone on the internet (or on the internet in the RIPE region ( or on the internet with interests in the RIPE region)) to vote. Or we may want to limit that to the "RIPE membership" which is and always has been non existent. (Not to be confused with the RIPE NCC Association membership) Now theese difficulties needs to be taken into account, just as your pont that electronic voting would allow thoose not able to get to the RIPE meeting to participate. -hph
In message <011e01c01cbb$3cb28b50$a20400c1@hph>, "Hans Petter Holen" writes:
My understanding of the consensus from the previous meetings was that electronic voting was felt to be not yet widely deployable technology. But we may want to reconcider that with experiences from the ICANN at large election and perhaps from ARINs and APNICs plans.
I would actually argue that electronic voting is preferred because it will allow people unable to participate in RIPE meetings to vote as well.
I agree with you but the trouble we ran into when discussiong this at a previous meeting was that it is easy to define the electorate (who gets to vote)
One LIR one vote ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
May be one AS one vote? It will be much more representativ... --- On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 15:23:25 +0200 Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> wrote:
In message <011e01c01cbb$3cb28b50$a20400c1@hph>, "Hans Petter Holen" writes:
My understanding of the consensus from the previous meetings was that electronic voting was felt to be not yet widely deployable technology. But we may want to reconcider that with experiences from the ICANN at large election and perhaps from ARINs and APNICs plans.
I would actually argue that electronic voting is preferred because it will allow people unable to participate in RIPE meetings to vote as well.
I agree with you but the trouble we ran into when discussiong this at a previous meeting was that it is easy to define the electorate (who gets to vote)
One LIR one vote ?
-- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
---------------End of Original Message----------------- Regards, Alexey Sadchikov --------------------------------------------------------------------+ MTU-Intel company, E-mail: asadchik@mtu.ru I Technical Director Phone +7 095 258-7839,7878 I Date: 09/12/00 Time: 19:28:40 FAX +7 095 258-7870 I --------------------------------------------------------------------+
Just to give you all the full picture, here is the consensus from the lir-wg as reported to the RIPE 35 plenary: Establish Final Selection Procedure for the Address Council Nominations. . Well in advance of the election . Candidates may present themselves at the budapest ripe meeting . At the mailinglist . At the autumn RIPE meeting . Mechanism for others to express support Who can vote ? . Not only RIPE NCC association members, but all members of the RIPE community . Everybody present at a RIPE meeting may vote . Due to restrictions in the MOU RIR staff cannot be elected or vote. Voting procedure: . Secret ballot at the RIPE meeting plenary . One vote pr seat to fill . The person(s) with most votes is elected Summary .Open: this procedure will be published well in advance on the mailinglist .Transparent: the whole process is known and takes part on the meetings .Simple: it is easy to understand and easy to have confidence in the process Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen lir-wg Chair
participants (3)
-
asadchik＠mtu.ru -
Hans Petter Holen -
Poul-Henning Kamp