Dear all
I have returned from a precious incommunicado week on the mountains to a... mountain of emails concerning the NCSG elections.
While it is great to see such heated debate around the future of our leadership, it is also painful to realize how potentially dangerous this is to our organization. Procedural issues are key, and I share the concerns raised here by a number of colleagues, including Milton, Stephanie, and Tatiana. I must admit I have only surveyed the many mails on the various threads, but I do add my voice to the request of suspending the current election and call for a new one with a ballot that gives members the chance to cast individual votes.
While I have no doubts about the good intentions of our chairman Tapani in compiling the ballot, I am worried about what the future holds for this group, in case of contested elections. Having just enough candidates to fill the available seats isn't a reason good enough to go for bulk votes. We need to be able to trust our representatives, and having a fair election process is the first step in this direction.
Apologies if I am stating the obvious, and much thanks to all those who have spent and are spending much energies and time on this while many others, me included, are on holidays--first of all, Tapani. Luckily he is known to be a patient man.
My two cents, Stefania
----------------------
Stefania Milan, PhD
University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl ||
stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey
fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850 EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B
________________________________________
Da: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]> per conto di Tatiana Tropina <[log in to unmask]>
Inviato: marted́ 23 agosto 2016 17.10.22
A: [log in to unmask]
Oggetto: Re: *Important* NCSG 2016 Annual Elections - voting has started
Dear Kathy, thanks for your very valuable opinion.
with all respect, I would like to disagree again. The current ballot together with Tapani's explanation means that we are voting for the councillors "in bulk".
One can reject only three of them. Is this really a fair process? My requests for clarifications or Milton requests for changing the ballot and other people's requests are aimed to the same goal - make people being able to vote for a particular candidate, not for a bunch of people. With us voting in thus way the election are turning into a kind of farce - why do we need *individual* statements of candidate, meetings and so on?
I think the argument goes in circles. A group of members (including me) just submitted an official challenge to this election to the list. Among the signatories are NCSG and NCUC EC and PC members, councillors and other active members of this stakeholder group who respectfully disagree with such a manner of voting. Let us get this argument to a formal process.
Warm regards
Tatiana
On 23 August 2016 at 16:58, Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Dear Tatiana,
With great respect, people seem to be asking for different things. Milton wants an NOTA to follow each name; you want different wording. I have to say that, per my earlier message, substantively the ballots of last year and this year look the same to me -- a group of candidates followed by a NOTA option. Procedurally, I think there would be a *greater challenge to the legitimacy of this election* by restarting it in the middle.
I urge us to redesign our ballot for the next election (and hopefully off list), but for this one, I wouldn't change it or fix it -- I would urge everyone to vote.
Best, Kathy
On 8/23/2016 3:26 AM, Tatiana Tropina wrote:
Dear Kathy, dear all,
as far as I am concerned the issue is not that the ballot looks different from the last year, the issue is a different interpretation of NOTA that makes election illegitimate. I personally rather prefer to revote (though I voted) and let us all to express opinions in a fair process.
Calling elections "symbolic" and asking everyone to just move on instead of correcting mistake hampers the whole election process and challenges the legitimacy of the elections. As I stated before, I personally find the claims that elections are symbolic and that no matter how we cast the votes we all know the result insulting and not worthy of the leadership of the group that aims to defend interests of the non-commercial stakeholders.
As someone who comes from a kind of undemocratic political regime, I do value the legitimacy of elections and the possibility to cast everyone's vote in a clear way and get it counted. "Let's fix it later for the next elections" is not the option that works for me.
Warm regards
Tatiana
On 23 August 2016 at 08:42, Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Dear All,
I have returned from dropping off my son at college to find many messages about the election. I have several things to share. First, I would like to thank our Chair, Tapani, for kicking off the elections in a timely and efficient manner. It is hard work, and important that we hold the election on time. Thank you, Tapani, for your time and effort in urging people to register for the election and now in distributing ballots in a fair and timely way.
Second, changing the ballot now could result in greater procedural irregularities and unfairness. I have already voted; Bill said he has already voted; others likely have already voted. I fear the procedural irregularities that might result from re-starting the elections. That is not a trivial or easy process. Should someone not receive a new ballot, or should someone be traveling and not be able to recast their ballot, that would be a substantive injustice -- a real unfairness - that I would argue outweighs most procedural concerns.
Third, the ballot, to me, looks like other ballots we have received.
This year's ballot looks like this:
"NCSG Election 2016
**Chair**
Select one of the following:
1. Tapani Tarvainen, Europe
2. None of the above
**Councillors**
Select at most three of the following candidates.
You may also choose None of the above instead.
3. Rafik Dammak, Asia
4. Edward Morris, Europe
5. Stephanie Perrin, North America
6. None of the above"
Last year's ballot looked like this (note: the only way to see the 2015 ballot is through the official results page still posted on the Tally election system):
"2015 Annual Election of ICANN's Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG):
Please find the candidates statements here :
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Candidate+Statements
Important Remarks:
For NCSG Chair position: select 1 candidate only. If you select more than 1 candidate your vote will be invalid.
For NCSG representatives to the GNSO Council you can select up to 3 candidates. If you select more than 3 candidates your vote will be invalid.
You can change your vote till the deadline 14th September 23:59UTC, only the last selection will be counted.
You will receive several reminders during the election with same link to your ballot. The weight of your vote is indicated in the ballot (1 for individual, 2 for small organisation and 4 for large organisation).
1. One NCSG Chair (1-year term)
Please select 1 choice:
1: 36 votes [] James Gannon
2:292 votes [] Tapani Tarvainen
3: 16 votes [] None of the above
2. Three NCSG Representatives to the GNSO Council (3 2-year term)
Please select 3 choices:
4:247 votes [] Amr Elsadr
5:247 votes [] Marilia Maciel
6:265 votes [] Stefania Milan
7: 26 votes [] None of the above"
==> This means that this year and last year, the ballot format was essentially the same: an office, all names of candidates for that office, then the option of "None of the above." I specifically note that last year, like this year, we did not follow each individual name with "None of the Above." The NOTA followed the group of candidates. Further, last year, like this year, there were three candidates for 3 slots for NCSG Representatives to the GNSO Council. We were fortunate then to have these individuals ready to devote so much of their time and energy to being Chair and Councilors; we are fortunate now. Overall, I see no material difference in this election ballot over last year's. This year, like last year, we have three great candidates. Each of these candidates has reams of support. I vote for letting the elections continue. I also look forward to being able to return to the Policy Development Work now taking place in the Working Groups -- there are many new messages and much work that needs be done. Best regards, Kathy
On 8/22/2016 4:39 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
Avri,
Okay I think I am starting to understand where you are coming from; basically you are saying that not providing NOTA option to individual counselor on the ballot (because that of chair is clear) may not give the avenue to factually review numbers of yes against number of no for each candidates. So if there are total of 100 votes weight casted and their are more NOTA for a candidate then such person will not be elected.
If the above is what you are referring to and if that is the usual tradition(which I think you call "old school"). Then it makes sense and yes the current ballot would not provide a definite data source to achieve that. However one could also assume that whoever voted and selected two counselors instead of three is technically implying a NOTA for the particular candidate - Although one may argue that it's not always the case since one could actually decide to abstain on a particular candidate.
Overall I think even though both "old school" and "new school" are not clearly stated in the charter, the known devil should be maintained until there is familiarity with and approval of the incoming angel ;-)
Regards
Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos
On 22 Aug 2016 23:08, "avri doria" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
On 22-Aug-16 15:25, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > 3. If you want just two of the three candidates then you can still > just select the two leaving the person you don't want unselected. > (ref: from the instructions: Select *at most three* of the following > candidates...) this does not work. We do not require a quorum, so as long as every candidate gets at least one vote and as as long as there are only N candidates for N jobs, everyone gets elected. It take the choice out of the election to remove NOTA's function. The voted NOTA gives a demarcation which someone cannot fall below and still be elected. That is why picking NOTA is on the ballot with the same weight as a single candidate. One intentionally needs to pick NOTA instead of one of the named candidates avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
|
