What a bunch of bollocks for 4/4 sterling candidates who are all getting a
seat anyway.

I think mistrust on *this particular election* can be forgotten, since
there's hardly any chances of having more NOTAs than votes on any
particular candidate. I mean REALLY.

What this hassle HAS been good for, is for getting more elaboration on
different voting options and the consequences of them. Tapani explained
those 8 cases really quite well. I feel that the NOTA option is much more
crucial for elections that has only one candidate but for multiwinner
elections it seems unnecessarily complex to have the NOTA-option at all. In
fact, I think having these eight cases might be skewing the elections more
than not having the option for NOTA, because of misunderstandings. But
that's just my two cents.

-Raoul

On 25 August 2016 at 11:23, marie-laure Lemineur <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> +1
> Marie-laure
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 2:09 PM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> +100 if anyone doesn’t know Glen, she is fabulous and entirely impartial,
>> full stop
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> On Aug 24, 2016, at 23:44, avri doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> On 24-Aug-16 17:07, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. wrote:
>>
>> I strongly support James comment. We should avoid this discussion
>> up-front!
>>
>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>> +506 8837 7176
>> Skype: carlos.raulg
>> Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
>> On 24 Aug 2016, at 16:31, James Gannon wrote:
>>
>> Glen in the only person who has access to the votes, and I would
>> challenge anyone to even consider the possibility of her compromising
>> the integrity of the ballots and the election in general. I
>> personally don’t see this as a topic worth discussing.
>>
>> -James
>>
>> From: NCSG-Discuss
>> <[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]><
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>>>
>> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline
>> <[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> <[log in to unmask]>>>
>> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline
>> <[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> <[log in to unmask]>>>
>> Date: Wednesday 24 August 2016 at 21:23
>> To:
>> "[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]><
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>>"
>> <[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]><
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>>>
>> Subject: Re: *Important* NCSG 2016 Annual Elections - Voting rules
>>
>> Hi Ron,
>>
>> Sorry for the confusion, but I do not have any kind of deep mistrust
>> for ICANN staff and did not intend for my remarks to be interpreted
>> in that manner.
>>
>> Scepticism of the process is okay, however as I said in an email to
>> this list yesterday, I consent to the legitimacy of the electoral
>> process, I am willing to bear the costs of electoral participation,
>> and I am fully prepared to use this to communicate my pleasure or
>> displeasure with the candidate(s) that are presented before me.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: *Important* NCSG 2016 Annual Elections - Voting rules
>> Local Time: August 24, 2016 9:00 PM
>> UTC Time: August 24, 2016 8:00 PM
>> From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]><mailto:r
>> [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>>
>> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]><
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I agree there should be a mechanism in place that allows voters
>> to spoil their ballot paper, should they wish to do so. The number
>> of spoiled ballots should be recorded.
>>
>>
>> I would consider it improper for anyone, be they ICANN staff or a
>> member of our community, to contact a voter about the contents of
>> their ballot paper and to insinuate that they may have voted in an
>> improper manner. If indeed it is possible to determine the number of
>> 'invalid' ballot papers before the election is over, and who has cast
>> a vote in such a manner, I am surprised this is the case.
>>
>> - Ayden
>>
>> hi Ayden,
>>
>> yes, with the mistrust that the NGSC has had for ICANN staff, it
>> seems that
>> trusting the election to a staff-run system would be considered
>> non-optimum.
>>
>> i would prefer that an independent outside voting organization that
>> would
>> keep the partial results of elections in progress secret from members
>> and
>> ICANN staff and only report the final results.
>>
>> while this is possible in the bylaws, our organization has no
>> independent
>> funds to contract for this outside work. but this option should be on
>> the table with the later discussion of voting procedures.
>>
>> -ron
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>>
>> *************************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> [log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists),
>>   www.williamdrake.org
>> *************************************************************
>>
>>
>