+1
Norbert Klein
in Cambodia - therefore the *highlight* further down.
On 8/23/2016 2:26 PM, 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
> <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
>> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
|