I must echo Amr here. The stuff I've been debating with him here has
little bearing on the current elections, the hypothetical fifth
year is very unlikely to matter much in practice, and the option
of asking Rafik to continue was purely academic at the point in
time it was raised.

But the gender diversity rules are no loopholes but clear language of
the charter as Robin explained, they have been debated in length years
ago and clarified as the straightforward decision procedure I linked
to before.

It would undoubtedly have been good to remind people of them well
before the election, but it's not as if they had been made up last
night or even last year, and there's really no debate to be had about
how they actually work in the present election: the rules are clear
and have been there for all to read all along.

And earlier on there was no expectation that such an imbalance would
occur, the first four nominations were evenly balanced by gender.

Liz, if you or anyone else really feel elections are being manipulated
with dubious means, I would also appreciate clarification.

For myself I can say that I did nominate a woman and I am of course
campaigning for her, which I believe to be right and proper in any
election and not illicit manipulation in any shape or form, and while
the rules do favor her in this case I don't think it actually matters,
she'd win anyway. (I did nominate a man, too, so maintaining gender
balance also on that level.)

All the best,

Tapani

On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 11:10:46AM +0000, Amr Elsadr ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> 
> Hi Liz,
> 
> Again…, I’m not attempting to manipulate the elections. I don’t know why you say that it is clear that I am. If you’d clarify your concerns, I’d be happy to respond.
> 
> I’m not arguing the merits or lack thereof of any diversity rules. Like others, I don’t believe this is the right time to do so. As I’ve said, I’m only trying to explain the interpretation of the Bylaws as I understand them.
> 
> I may disagree with Tapani’s interpretation, and he may disagree with mine, but I’m engaging with him in this discussion in good faith, as I am sure he is too. Apart from having concerns over me possibly seeking to manipulate the elections, is there anything in the substance of what I said that you agree or disagree with?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> > On Jun 2, 2020, at 1:01 PM, Liz Orembo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > To bring this up at the close of the nomination process is a clear manipulation of the election. If someone really wanted gender diversity they would have encouraged people to come out and run for elections from the period of nomination.
> >
> > I am for gender and regional diversity, but what I see here is a play where people depend on election technicalities and loopholes to get their favourite candidates. And then we are here wondering why people are not volunteering to run?
> >
> > We cant be that group of civil societies calling for accountability within ICANN if we can't even manage straight elections. Lets give this process the seriousness it deserves.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 1:27 PM Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >>> On Jun 2, 2020, at 6:29 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >> [SNIP]
> >>
> >>> Second, the one-year term does not count in term limit in this case,
> >>> as per ICANN Bylaws 11.3(b). That is, whoever gets it may be elected
> >>> twice after that for a total of five years, whereas those who get two
> >>> years now can only do only one additional term for a total of four
> >>> years (absent special circumstances we discussed with Amr earlier,
> >>> which could allow an extra term in either case).
> >>
> >> I don’t believe this is correct. Only those selected/appointed to fill a vacancy fit the scenario you’re describing here, Tapani. So, for example, Juan was appointed to fill a vacancy on Council. The time he served does not count toward his two consecutive terms limit, and he may run for a full Council term now (or a one-year term depending on the number of votes he gets), and if elected, may run for a second full term in two years time.
> >>
> >> Whoever gets elected to fill the leftover 1-year period has this 1-year term count towards the two consecutive term limit, so will have a maximum possibility of three consecutive years on Council, instead of four (not five instead of four).
> >>
> >> The relevant language in the Bylaws says:
> >>
> >> "Except in a "special circumstance," such as, but not limited to, meeting geographic or other diversity requirements defined in the Stakeholder Group charters, where no alternative representative is available to serve, no Council member may be selected to serve more than two consecutive terms, in such a special circumstance a Council member may serve one additional term. For these purposes, a person selected to fill a vacancy in a term shall not be deemed to have served that term. A former Council member who has served two consecutive terms must remain out of office for one full term prior to serving any subsequent term as Council member. A "special circumstance" is defined in the GNSO Operating Procedures." [emphasis added]
> >>
> >> An elected Councilor is not filling a vacant seat. The seat is his or hers once elected. Vacant seats are filled by selection/appointment, not by election. A “vacancy” on the GNSO Council is defined in Article 11.3(c) of the ICANN Bylaws.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Amr
> >
> > --
> >
> > Best regards.
> > Liz.
> >
> > PGP ID: 0x1F3488BF

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen