An interesting debate that actually needs to be properly adressed.

A scenario:
A nomination was made for someone, then people started showing support
(with +1s) until they realize there is another nomination that comes in and
they now wonder how to cancel their first support given the new one is
"more qualified and sounds the best" than the one they initially supported.
If we only count +1s made for a candidate, we may get the wrong temperature
of the room for so many reasons.

And yes, some people will refrain themselves to show up because they are
impressed/intimidated of how many +1s the other candidate has got already.
This can also be subject to conflict between nominated candidates (why does
he supporting x not me?).

That's why secret vote is always the best unless the group agree on open
votes (such as +1s) which is not, IMO, the best way to go.

In other groups like in the IGC, we suggested: whenever there are
nominations, people refrain from showing supports until the nomination
period is closed and vote is open. People then express their support
through a ballot (a secret one) after they have read SOI and assess
candidates based on their profile.

My few cents.

------------------------
**Arsène Tungali**
Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international
<http://www.rudiinternational.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <http://www.smart-serv.info>*, *Mabingwa Forum
<http://www.mabingwa-forum.com>*
Tel: +243 993810967
GPG: 523644A0
*Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*

2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
<http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html>
(YALI) - ISOC IGF Ambassador
<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/2015Ambassadors>
<http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/education-and-leadership-programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/2015Ambassadors>-

Blogger <http://tungali.blogspot.com> - ICANN Fellow
<https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-18-en>. The HuffingtonPost
UK <http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/liza-bel/drc_b_8958150.html>

2016-08-03 16:44 GMT+02:00 Stephanie Perrin <
[log in to unmask]>:

> 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]
> <[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
>
>
>