NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
David Cake <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
David Cake <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 20 Oct 2011 06:20:24 +0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (92 lines)
I wasn't intending to imply there was any merit to the accusations (I was making an argument about process, not the issues themselves), or that the board should get involved (quite the opposite). 

Rather, my intention was to fend off any argument from urgency for the board to get involved - if there is no urgency and the outcome would not have changed, I can't see any argument against resolving this process by the most appropriate channels (which the board clearly is not). 

Cheers

David

> On 10/19/11 1:32 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I think that is a good argument but for two things:
>> 
>> - It allows that there is some merit to the accusations
>> - it presumes that the Board has any jurisdiction in this issue
>> 
>> avri
>> lame duck (ncuc)
>> 
>> On 19 Oct 2011, at 16:17, David Cake wrote:
>> 
>>> I'd like to add my voice to those thanking Avri for her efforts.
>>> 
>>> Is there a mathematical way in which the NPOC appeal can be shown to present a  meaningful challenge to the election?
>>> 
>>> My reading is that the NPOC appeal is demanding that 13 NPC members (rejected by the NCSG-EC leadership for various reasons) should have been allowed to vote in the elections, and that these represent 40 votes. Even if ALL 13 were large organisations under the NCSG charter (which they aren't by NPOCs count), and thus entitled to 4 votes each, that would make a difference of 13x4 = 52 votes, which at most could bring Nuno or Debra to 83 votes- which would still be less than Rafiks 88 votes, so would not change the result?
>>> 
>>> So I see no way in which substantial complaint here, even if upheld, could result in a result that would challenge the results?
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> David
>>> 
>>> On 19/10/2011, at 6:42 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 
>>>> To the membership:
>>>> 
>>>> The provisional results of the election are provided below.
>>>> 
>>>> As discussed in the Policy Call yesterday, there is an opportunity for each voter to verify their vote against the ballot they cast using the unique and private ballot number included on the ballot sent to each voter in the election and on the receipt of the submitted ballot.  I ask any concerned voter to check the files indicate below to confirm their ballot and to bring up any issues concerning balloting or weighting of their vote.  In order for the vote to remain private, I ask that any questions about their private vote be addressed directly with the GNSO Secretariat<[log in to unmask]>  who ran the ballot.  Do Not Send a copy of your ballot receipt to this list unless you wish to announce your vote to the entire community. Do Not Send a copy of your ballot to me - I do not wish to know how people voted.
>>>> 
>>>> I ask that all issues regarding the vote be registered with the GNSO Secretariat by Close of Business Friday 21 October 2011.  It is my intention to announce the verified results at the NCSG Constituency Day meeting in Dakar on Tuesday 25 October 2011.  The new chair will take over as chair of meeting at that point while the new GNSO Council members will take their seats at the end of the Dakar meeting.
>>>> 
>>>> With thanks to GNSO Secretariat for their effort in supporting our election and thanks to all the candidates.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> GNSO Council Election
>>>> 
>>>> Totals:
>>>> 
>>>> 111	 Wendy Seltzer
>>>> 95	 Wolfgang Kleinwachter
>>>> 91	 Joy Liddicoat
>>>> 88	 Rafik Damak
>>>> 31	 Nuno Garcia
>>>> 31	 Debra Hughes
>>>> 27	 Alain Berranger
>>>> 10	 Hago Elteraifi Mohamed Dafalla
>>>> 4	 None of the Above
>>>> 
>>>> Wendy Seltzer, Wolfgang Kleinwachter, and Joy Liddicoat are provisionally elected to 2 year terms, while Rafik Damak is provisionally elected to a 1 year term.
>>>> 
>>>> The record of the election provided by the GNSO secretariat who supervised the vote can be found at: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/27328718/ncsg-council-member.txt?version=1&modificationDate=1319019865346
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ----------------------------
>>>> NCSG Chair Election
>>>> 
>>>> Totals:
>>>> 
>>>> 119	 Robin Gross
>>>> 7	 None of the above
>>>> 
>>>> Robin Gross is provisionally elected to a one year term as NCSG Chair.
>>>> 
>>>> The record of the election provided by the GNSO secretariat who supervised the vote can be found at: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/27328718/ncsg-chair.txt?version=1&modificationDate=1319019897216
>>>> 
>>>> ----------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I must note, that despite having participated in the nomination process, having submitted statements of candidacy and been listed on the ballot without prior notice or complaint, the NPOC leadership has filed a complaint with the ICANN Board and requested that the vote be suspended and new elections called.
>>>> The letter to the Board by the NPOC leadership can be found at:<http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/arc/ncsg-ec/2011-10/msg00048.html>
>>>> while my response to this complaint can be found at:<http://info.n4c.eu/sympa/arc/ncsg-ec/2011-10/msg00049.html>
>>>> 
>>>> It is my expectation, and hope, that the ICANN Board will choose not to interfere in this election.
>>>> 
>>>> A copy of this note is filed at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Elections+2011
>>>> 
>>>> Avri Doria
>>>> Interim Chair, NCSG

ATOM RSS1 RSS2