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:

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">
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:
[log in to unmask]" type="cite">On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Avri Doria wrote:
[snip]

[log in to unmask]" type="cite"> 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]