It strike me, to the contrary, that we should have had a much higher turnout than we eventually did. I thought the checking-in was a great idea/system, although i concede i was a little bit puzzled by the check-in mail when i first got it. The fact that a significant proportion of people would respond to a "check-in" and not a "vote", while the latter is considerably more eye-catching a term, was not something i considered probable. Especially given that they were sent out in such a short time span. I'm afraid I have no theory as to what could have happened, except maybe for the one that points to misunderstanding of voting methodology (?and subsequent blindness to repeated step-by-step instructions as to how to proceed?). Perhaps we could send out an anonymized survey to everyone that checked-in but did not vote, in order to glean some info as to the reasons it went out like that. Here's a few scenario that may account for some people's no-show: -- didn't realize that not voting was voting no and wanted to refrain from voting for some reason -- realized that not voting was voting no but still preferred that way of saying no despite Timothe's well thought out plea to the contrary -- didn't read their NCSG emails with attention or at all during the critical period -- couldn't understand how to vote Nicolas On 8/30/2011 10:02 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > This election turn-out is actually quite in-line with democracy > generally - or perhaps a bit better. > > For example, in recent federal election, the voter turn-out in > California was only 23% of eligible voters. That's common. > > Low voter turn-out is not a problem that is unique to NCSG. > > However, let's not let that stop us from trying to figure out how to > achieve greater participation from the entire membership. :-) > > Thanks to all for this achievement! > > Best, > Robin > > > > > On Aug 30, 2011, at 6:45 PM, nhklein wrote: > >> On 08/31/2011 03:38 AM, Ron Wickersham wrote: >>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Avri Doria wrote: >>> [snip] >> >>> For >>> future on votes of this importance (an issue that would make/break >>> the exisistence of the NCSG)*i would suggest we ask that paper >>> ballots be mailed* to the eligible voters. This is no small task or >>> expense, but pales with the expenses ICANN incurrs in holding the >>> board meetings around the workd and other routine expenses. >>> >>> -ron >> * >> Please don't* - e-mail I get immediately, paper mail about once a >> week, mostly useless advertisements etc. - too difficult to sort out >> if there is occasionally something important. >> >> If someone cannot handle e-mail - are they able to actively analyze >> the questions we as non-commercials, are facing in ICANN? >> >> The poor participation of the "active" membership in the election >> requires some soul searching about the non-commercial public's >> interest and commitment to get and to be involved. The Intellectual >> Property lobby have their interest, so they act. >> >> The 61.9% is not the result of poor technology - especially >> considering the huge "management" input by Avri. >> >> >> Norbert >> -- >> A while ago, I started a new blog: >> >> ...thinking it over... after 21 years in Cambodia >> http://www.thinking21.org/ >> >> continuing to share reports and comments from Cambodia. >> >> Norbert Klein >> [log in to unmask] >> Phnom Penh / Cambodia >> > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > >