Dear colleagues,
In order to help me to understand this (already highly enthropical)
issue and to take an informed decision, could anyone please confirm
the following statements as true/false?
(If false, i'd appreciate a reference to the correct policy)
1. This is the last published version of the Charter:
   https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter
2. Beyond the 4,2,1-weighted system set forth in the introduction
   of Sectiion 4, no voting method has been formally established.
3. Up to now, elections ave been conducted using a single-member
   plurality (aka “first past the post") system.
4. There are no provisions in the Charter for uncontested elections.
5. Some elections have incorporated a "none of the above" option
   in the ballot
6. There is no formal definition of the meaning of such "none of the
   above" option, nor of its "pseudo-candidate" status
7. If NotA is indeed a "pseudo-candidate", there is no formal
   definition on how the disputed position should be covered in case
   NotA is the first to pass the post.
8.a. Some members are advocating to replace the existing single-
     member plurality method by a form of approval or majority
     judgement voting[1]; or
   b. Some members assume that such form of amjority judgement
     hs been used in all elections up to the current one.

Thanks!!

Enrique

::Note::
[1] Such form would be: voters must rate every candidate using one
    of three values (1, 0, -1 or "approve", "neutral", "reject" -- '0' is
    assumed wherever the voter does not cast an option). Canddate
    with the highest (positive?) sum wins. Paraphrasing Fermat, this
    message is too narrow to analyze pros and cons of such system.
    The method is rather unusual 'in real life', but not unknown.