If I may add, I think it would be the best to explain all these eight cases
in the future, with the tally-mail that gives you the link to vote. So
everybody can check what excactly happens with the different options with
the CURRENT system/interpretation. I'm shocked to find there's been so much
confusion around this.

Also, I was under the impression, that if one voted for NOTA and two
candidates, the whole vote for those three would be invalidated. Now, I'm
being told that this might have even been changed AFTER sending the
tally-mails and it's actually so that one can vote for two candidates AND
NOTA to prevent the remaining candidate from getting a seat, by
accumulating more NOTAs than votes on that particular candidate. Which is
it, and if it really was changed after the tally-mails were sent, shouldn't
we have a new vote, since lots of people must now have been unaware of the
change?

At least there's still one thing I'm still sure of, these NOTAs are more
perplexing and unclear than necessary on multiwinner elections. I'm also
now interested on whether it is the actual software that has been changed
or the interpretation of the results?

I am sincerely sorry that I didn't read all hundred emails before about
this issue and must now seem willingly ignorant, but I'd really appreciate
if somebody could still answer my simple questions. This hassle has
definitely not improved my image of ICANN procedures (or is it just
NCSG/NCUC?), when even simple elections with a very few choices can be
perverted in this way. I thought we'd be more experienced than this.

-Raoul

On 25 August 2016 at 12:54, Raoul Plommer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> What a bunch of bollocks for 4/4 sterling candidates who are all getting a
> seat anyway.
>
> I think mistrust on *this particular election* can be forgotten, since
> there's hardly any chances of having more NOTAs than votes on any
> particular candidate. I mean REALLY.
>
> What this hassle HAS been good for, is for getting more elaboration on
> different voting options and the consequences of them. Tapani explained
> those 8 cases really quite well. I feel that the NOTA option is much more
> crucial for elections that has only one candidate but for multiwinner
> elections it seems unnecessarily complex to have the NOTA-option at all. In
> fact, I think having these eight cases might be skewing the elections more
> than not having the option for NOTA, because of misunderstandings. But
> that's just my two cents.
>
> -Raoul
>
> On 25 August 2016 at 11:23, marie-laure Lemineur <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>> Marie-laure
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 2:09 PM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> +100 if anyone doesn’t know Glen, she is fabulous and entirely
>>> impartial, full stop
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> On Aug 24, 2016, at 23:44, avri doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24-Aug-16 17:07, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. wrote:
>>>
>>> I strongly support James comment. We should avoid this discussion
>>> up-front!
>>>
>>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>>> +506 8837 7176
>>> Skype: carlos.raulg
>>> Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
>>> On 24 Aug 2016, at 16:31, James Gannon wrote:
>>>
>>> Glen in the only person who has access to the votes, and I would
>>> challenge anyone to even consider the possibility of her compromising
>>> the integrity of the ballots and the election in general. I
>>> personally don’t see this as a topic worth discussing.
>>>
>>> -James
>>>
>>> From: NCSG-Discuss
>>> <[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]><
>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>>>
>>> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline
>>> <[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>> <[log in to unmask]>>>
>>> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline
>>> <[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>> <[log in to unmask]>>>
>>> Date: Wednesday 24 August 2016 at 21:23
>>> To:
>>> "[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]><
>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>>"
>>> <[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]><
>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>>>
>>> Subject: Re: *Important* NCSG 2016 Annual Elections - Voting rules
>>>
>>> Hi Ron,
>>>
>>> Sorry for the confusion, but I do not have any kind of deep mistrust
>>> for ICANN staff and did not intend for my remarks to be interpreted
>>> in that manner.
>>>
>>> Scepticism of the process is okay, however as I said in an email to
>>> this list yesterday, I consent to the legitimacy of the electoral
>>> process, I am willing to bear the costs of electoral participation,
>>> and I am fully prepared to use this to communicate my pleasure or
>>> displeasure with the candidate(s) that are presented before me.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Ayden
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: *Important* NCSG 2016 Annual Elections - Voting rules
>>> Local Time: August 24, 2016 9:00 PM
>>> UTC Time: August 24, 2016 8:00 PM
>>> From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]><mailto:r
>>> [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>>
>>> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]><
>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree there should be a mechanism in place that allows voters
>>> to spoil their ballot paper, should they wish to do so. The number
>>> of spoiled ballots should be recorded.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would consider it improper for anyone, be they ICANN staff or a
>>> member of our community, to contact a voter about the contents of
>>> their ballot paper and to insinuate that they may have voted in an
>>> improper manner. If indeed it is possible to determine the number of
>>> 'invalid' ballot papers before the election is over, and who has cast
>>> a vote in such a manner, I am surprised this is the case.
>>>
>>> - Ayden
>>>
>>> hi Ayden,
>>>
>>> yes, with the mistrust that the NGSC has had for ICANN staff, it
>>> seems that
>>> trusting the election to a staff-run system would be considered
>>> non-optimum.
>>>
>>> i would prefer that an independent outside voting organization that
>>> would
>>> keep the partial results of elections in progress secret from members
>>> and
>>> ICANN staff and only report the final results.
>>>
>>> while this is possible in the bylaws, our organization has no
>>> independent
>>> funds to contract for this outside work. but this option should be on
>>> the table with the later discussion of voting procedures.
>>>
>>> -ron
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *************************************************************
>>> William J. Drake
>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>> [log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists),
>>>   www.williamdrake.org
>>> *************************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>
>