Hi Klaus,

I think you mean 'conscience', am I correct?

I don't think conscience and accountability are at odds with each other.
I was not arguing for guided voting. But I do think a representative
should be accountable to her/his community and consult it before making
such a decision. I think this has not been done properly.

Best,

Niels

On 08/03/2016 05:28 PM, Klaus Stoll wrote:
> Dear Niels
> 
> On 8/3/2016 11:02 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote
> 
>> 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.
>>
> Yes accountability is important, all for it, but we should not forget
> another value: Continence.
> Sometimes you have to go against what your group tells you because of
> your continence.
> I was a continuous objector to join the German army, and I paid for it,
> but I still believe I was 100% right.
> We should learn to respect and even foster people that act on their
> ethical values, even if their brothers and sisters call for their head.
> What is more important: Having people act on what they fundamentally
> believe or act on what they have been told by the majority, however well
> meaning it is.
> 
> Again, we should learn to respect and value those amongst us that are
> brave enough to follow their ethical compass.
> 
> For what it's worth
> 
> Yours
> 
> Klaus
>> 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