Carlos et al.,

Since the voting system is separate from, for example, this email list, it
may be that some people who are members are not recognizing those messages
as connected with this group, especially some newer members.

It's good to have lots of new members, but how many of them are actively
engaged?  Is there some minimum level of engagement that is useful for
membership?  (Case in point: I consider myself to be at the bare edge of
active enough engagement to qualify...)

If you ever hold any stock in public companies, you may get "proxy vote"
forms for stockholder elections of board members, and many people just
toss them out, because those elections are often sort of rigged and the
choices are not significantly different.  And, there is no penalty to the
corporation if stockholders don't vote.

This is different, and it may be useful to underscore very prominently
that (1) this is coming from NCUC/NCSG at ICANN (I recognized it easily,
myself, but I'm not sure that everyone would), and (2) it is important
that a large majority of members participate in this vote on the charter
(I expect even a moderate number of 'no' votes is probably better than
large numbers of abstentions, but EC folks can confirm this or not).

I don't know if it's better to have fewer members who are more actively
engaged or more members who are less actively engaged.  Would it make any
sense to require a vote on the charter in order to retain membership?
That would be a rather Draconian policy, but I can envision circumstances
where it might be appropriate.  I'm not sure that these circumstances
qualify as such, but perhaps something along these lines is worth
considering.

If someone joined up and then never checked in, maybe this is not on their
radar, and we shouldn't consider them genuinely participating members of
the group.  List-lurking may not be enough to qualify, on its own.

Dan


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and
do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.

On Tue, May 25, 2010 1:16 pm, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> Grande Alex, if their emails are on the voters' list, they for sure have
> received messages from the voting system with full instructions.
>
> abraço fraterno
>
> --c.a.
>
> Alex Gakuru wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I hope Mr. James Wire (from Uganda), Madam Dorothy Gordon (Ghana) and
>> Mr. Zain Khan (Canada) cast their ballots? among others..
>>
>> kindly,
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Just got an update from the folks in Brazil running the vote on the
>>> charter.
>>>
>>>> - less than 27% of voters have voted so far
>>>>
>>>> - everyone should have received an automatic email from
>>>> <[log in to unmask]> with a personalized URL to vote
>>>>
>>>> - a second reminder from the voting system (sender:
>>>> <[log in to unmask]>)
>>>> has just been sent to all members who have not yet voted
>>>>
>>>> - if you have not voted, please do so now!
>>> If you feel you should have received a ballot and didn't please let me
>>> know.
>>>
>>> For any new members - you did not receive a ballot as the vote is only
>>> for those who had been members before the vote was initiated.
>>>
>>> a.
>>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Carlos A. Afonso
> CGI.br (www.cgi.br)
> Nupef (www.nupef.org.br)
> ====================================
> new/nuevo/novo e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> ====================================
>