Hi,

Votes for GNSO Chair is via secret ballot, not a public vote like motions before the Council. May not be so easy to take a look at them for any reason whatsoever.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Aug 3, 2016, at 5:31 PM, Niels ten Oever <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Fully agree. And I think we should have a look at the voting history and
> proceedings during the last GNSO period.
> 
> Examples that come to mind are the vote on human rights inclusion in the
> bylaw, the vote on the GNSO chair, and an analysis on how the sexual
> harrassment comments should be followed up.
> 
> So I hope the candidate councilors and existing councilors that put
> themselves forward for re-election will elaborate on this.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Niels
> 
> 
> 
> On 08/03/2016 05:14 PM, Milan, Stefania wrote:
>> Thanks Niels for raising the issue of accountability. As a Councilor,
>> I often ask myself how, and to what extent, am I accountable to our
>> community. I wonder how to best elicit what the community "wants",
>> and how we can best represent it.
>> 
>> While NCSG, contrary to other constituencies, does not implement
>> directed voting (in other words, each Councilor is free to vote as
>> she pleases), we should also strive for "better" accountability. And
>> accountability should be a topic of discussion in occasions like
>> this... campaign.
>> 
>> Stefania
>> 
>> ________________________________________ Da: NCSG-Discuss
>> <[log in to unmask]> per conto di Niels ten Oever
>> <[log in to unmask]> Inviato: mercoledì 3 agosto 2016
>> 17.02.16 A: [log in to unmask] Oggetto: Re: +1's and
>> support
>> 
>> I'd like to add that I think it would also be very good if we would 
>> increase the accountability of our councillors and leadership team.
>> 
>> I was for instance very surprised, and quite shocked frankly, when
>> one of our own councillors, as the only one on the GNSO, came out
>> against the inclusion of a commitment to human rights in ICANNs
>> bylaws.
>> 
>> I do not think this represented the opinion of the NCSG, or at least 
>> such a decision was not agreed upon.
>> 
>> NCSG has gained a lot of credibility, but it is also at risk of
>> losing it at times. Better accountability can help us to prevent that
>> from happening.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Niels
>> 
>> On 08/03/2016 04:44 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>> Having served on council now for two years, I think we should
>>> consider better how we want to run these elections.  DO people out
>>> there really understand the work we do on council?  How do we want
>>> our council members to act?  How do we want them to discuss issues
>>> on our monthly policy calls?  How collaborative should the decision
>>> making be?  How do we do succession planning and mentoring?  These
>>> are issues that are fundamentally important in my view, and should
>>> be discussed during the campaign, not relegated to nominee's
>>> statements.
>>> 
>>> I agree with Niels and Milton that if expressions of support are 
>>> suppressing candidates from coming forward, we need a rule against
>>> it. We desperately need more people to run....there was only one
>>> contested seat the last time I ran, when gender balance and
>>> regional balance were taken into consideration.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Stephanie
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2016-08-03 10:24, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. wrote:
>>>> Dear Milton.
>>>> 
>>>> I agree that this is a very fine procedural point, that should
>>>> be managed clearly by the people responsible for the process,
>>>> from the first mail on, so as to allow for others to consider
>>>> participating. Maybe it should even become a written rule of
>>>> internal netiquette.
>>>> 
>>>> But in the meantime, coming from a Hyperdemocratic and 
>>>> Hyper-freedom-of-expression rights country like Costa Rica (and
>>>> the re-election being a possibility for some incumbents)  I
>>>> done´t see anything wrong in feeling the temperature of the room
>>>> early on as a way to recognise how hard some of them have worked
>>>> in the past. We might have chosen the wrong place to make this
>>>> type of comments, but space should be available for making them
>>>> in the list anyhow. Maybe just under a different heading, like “I
>>>> don´t like the re-election of incumbents” for example.
>>>> 
>>>> Now, do we have an explicit rule as suggested by Niels and you?
>>>> How and where do we express our support for that rule? Should we
>>>> draw a redline and asked for a renewed call for the election
>>>> process with the new rule and forget the past? Lets be practical
>>>> and move forward ASAP.
>>>> 
>>>> Best
>>>> 
>>>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current
>>>> UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 3 Aug 2016, at 8:11, Mueller,
>>>> Milton L wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I second Niels's views. I have refrained from expressing any
>>>>> opinion about the nominations until the nominations are closed
>>>>> and we are discussing candidate statements. I have always done
>>>>> so.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --MM
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-Discuss
>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Niels ten
>>>>>> Oever Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 10:30 AM To:
>>>>>> [log in to unmask] Subject: +1's and support
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Even though I think the regular display of +1's is a signal
>>>>>> of mutual support and camaraderie. I have the feeling that
>>>>>> sometimes it is drowning out other discussions about content
>>>>>> on the list.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> May I also remind people that the voting happens later, so
>>>>>> the candidates need your support is even more then.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm greatly looking forward to the statements of the
>>>>>> candidates.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Niels
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Article 19 www.article19.org
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2
>>>>>> 636D 68E9
>>> 
>> 
>> -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
>> 
>> Article 19 www.article19.org
>> 
>> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>> 
>> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity
>> to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
>> privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination,
>> distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in
>> reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the
>> intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of
>> the sender. If you received this communication in error, please
>> contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Niels ten Oever
> Head of Digital
> 
> Article 19
> www.article19.org
> 
> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9