Thanks for the kinds words folks.

I'll just add one thing, below.

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 04:09:17PM -0700, Ron Wickersham wrote:
> >From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Neal McBurnett
> ---snip---
> >I hope that the new ballot simply lists NOTA as one option for each contest (rather than being separated out as an option for each candidate), and that the interpretation is that if NOTA is among the winners, that no candidate with less than the NOTA candidate will be seated, and another procedure would be used for filling the vacant seat.  But at this point I would be ok with just using the NOTA total as an indication of desire for improvement in candidates (which we don't seem to have an excess of - think about it folks...), as was done in at least one previous election.
> ---snip
> 
> I strongly support this suggestion -- and beg the committee to adopt exactly
> that solution.

Note that I listed two options there.

The option of having NOTA actually be able to win should of course also be accompanied by a specific plan for how the unfilled seats would be filled.  I haven't looked into all the aspects of how that might be done in compliance with the Charter, but as Ron points out it may be challenging to pin down, and is also complicated by the requirements for regional and gender diversity.

If the leadership can agree on a plan for all that which seems to pass muster, that would be nice since it would make the election more meaningful.  But if not, for the time being, it may be easier to punt on that, as was reportedly done, explicitly, in 2011, and "skip" the NOTA votes, taking them in an advisory light.

But my main hope is for the leadership to find a path to agreement here, and prioritize unity about these procedural issues, and for my fellow members to strive for procedural agreement also.  That's what I plan to do, so we can get back to making a difference in ICANN at large.

Neal McBurnett                 http://neal.mcburnett.org/

> The parties involved have my respect and have normally been civil
> and respectfully of others, but the mood during this election
> process over
> the ballot has turned ugly, and uncharacteristicly uncollegial.
> 
> To change the ballot as Dr. Mueller suggested by having a NOTA box for
> each candidate would change the complexion of the whole election process
> including the nomination period -- and delegitimaize the results changing
> the rules in the middle of the contest.   NOTA simply does not make any
> sense in normal English meaning, and should not be used to describe a
> negative vote for an individual canditate, and would not make sense should
> there have been ten canditates instead of three.  I'm particularly distressed
> that Dr. Mueller choose to chastize Mr. Stoll when he was discussing on
> this member's list options he was suggesting, stating that, "Let's
> leave it to the EC, Klaus."   Then Mr. Gannon suggests forwarding
> Mr. McBurnett's
> comment to the EC via Ms. Gross.
> 
> I also note that earlier in the thread, Dr. Mueller suggested that actions
> of the EC had to be ratified by the body politic before being legitimate
> according to the Bylaws.  Yet the "Group of 21" letter does not demand
> the inclusion of the discussion on the member's list.  If the out-of-precident
> suggestion of NOTA for each canditate would be for the express purpose of
> some member's desire that one of the duly nominated persons be removed from
> the results.  Yet this brings up further questions:  how will we solve the
> missing seat to the "Group of 21"'s satisfaction.  Hold another period
> of nomination for the position?   Have the Chair appoint a member?  The
> time to put forth alternates was during the nomination period, and if
> the "Group of 21" can get their protests together, then they should have
> been able to get a nominee acceptable to them during the open period to
> run for the seat.
> 
> I beg the EC not to skuttle the legitimacy of the whole process to
> satisfy the demand of the demands of the "Group of 21" to accomplish
> by back channel methods rather than working openly and transparently
> by nominating and campaigning for their choices on the list.
> 
> 
> respectfully submitted,
> 
> -ron