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