I've been focused on election integrity for more than a decade, and I have been involved in non-profit governance for a long time also, as well as this group and NCDNHC going back to the beginning, so this discussion is particularly interesting to me.
My advice at this point would be to use the opportunity of the meeting tomorrow to recognize that we need a fresh start on this particular election ballot. To do otherwise would continue to lead to questions about how to interpret the results, since some people might not see new instructions on how NOTA will be interpreted.
It will also give the leadership a chance to come together on the way the ballot should be worded and interpreted. That unity among the leadership should help us all come together around our goals and the hard-working volunteers that are each trying in their own way to move us forward.
As to the specifics, at this point, I think this is what I would recommend, though most any procedure that the leadership team agress with would be fine at this point from my perspective.
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.
In hope that we can all appreciate each other's perspectives, hard work, and remarkable unity around the many substantive Internet governance problems we are here to help solve,
Neal McBurnett http://neal.mcburnett.org/
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 02:49:48PM -0700, Robin Gross wrote:
> Absolutely Paul. Actually the two issues are inter-twined in this case, rather than being mutually exclusive issues. When some
> members got their ballots, they expressed confusion about them, and how they are to be interpreted, etc. The chair’s explanation
> of NOTA to this list caused further concern and confusion on what it means to cast a NOTA vote on the ballot. The chair said that
> if you vote for one council candidate and also vote for NOTA, your vote will be invalided. As in, your vote doesn’t count. You
> can only accept all or none of the candidates under the chair’s interpretation of NOTA on this ballot. That is the interpretation
> in question and raised in the petition by the group of 21 NCSG members. The petition does a better job of explaining, so I’ll post
> the text below for clarity sake.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> **********
>
> The undersigned NCSG Members challenge the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee to refuse to briefly postpone an annual
> election that is being held using a flawed ballot and that suffers from an inadequately supervised election process in violation of
> the NCSG’s Charter.
>
> Without any notice to the membership or the Executive Committee, the NCSG Chair changed the longstanding interpretation of the
> election rules, causing confusion among the membership once the ballot was released. Once the confusion was explained, the Chair
> and the EC refused to stop the election or to issue a clarified ballot. Part of the rationale given by the NCSG Chair was that this
> was just a “symbolic vote” since we had only 3 candidates for 3 Council seats. This is untrue, the mechanism summarily changed had
> allowed for a negative vote to be cast without needing to vote against a particular candidate or against all the candidates.
> Without a new vote with clarified procedures and ballot, the election cannot be seen as legitimate.
>
> The issue at stake is more than just a question of particular elections or particular version of a ballot. It is an issue of good
> governance and due process. The NCSG has been known for demanding transparency, accountability and good governance from ICANN. The
> suggestion of “symbolic” elections with a confusing and disputed ballot undermines the whole concept of the NCSG and casts a shadow
> on its future activities. And it undermines ICANN’s multistakeholder model and its ability to deliver legitimate democratic
> processes for Internet governance.
>
> Similarly, not addressing this problem now might lead to issues in the shortterm and mediumtolongterm in the functioning of the
> NCSG and its councillors, which will not benefit the effectiveness of the stakeholder group. We therefore would like to see this
> concern addressed before continuing with the election.
>
> Pursuant to Section 2.4.2.1 of NCSG’s Charter, the NCSG Members signed below hereby initiate an appeal of this NCSG EC decision to
> refuse to fix the contested ballots and properly clarify the election process before proceeding.
>
> Member Signatures
>
> 1. Avri Doria Individual Member
>
> 2. James Gannon Individual Member
>
> 3. Tatiana Tropina Individual Member
>
> 4. Farzaneh Badii Individual Member
>
> 5. Stephanie Perrin Individual Member
>
> 6. Robin Gross, IP Justice, Organizational Member
>
> 7. Amr Elsadr, Individual Member
>
> 8. Ayden Férdeline, Individual Member
>
> 9. Niels ten Oever, Article19, Organizational Member
>
> 10. William Drake, Individual Member
>
> 11. Anriette Esterhuysen, APC, Organizational Member
>
> 12. Rachel Pollack Ichou Individual Member
>
> 13. Milton Mueller, Internet Governance Project, Organizational Member
>
> 14. Dan Krimm, Individual Member
> 15. Stefania Milan, Individual Member
> 16. Monika Zalnieriute, Individual Member
>
> 17. David Cake, Electronic Frontiers Australia, Organizational Member
>
> 18. Norbert Klein, Open Institute, Organizational Member
> 19. Michael Oghia, Individual Member
> 20. Kim von Arx, Individual Member
>
> 21. DeeDee Halleck, Deep Dish Network
>
>
> **********
>
>
> On Aug 23, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
> Robin
>
> Now I am confused. . I had thought the complaint was about the "confusing" ballot. . Your note says it is about the Nota
> interpretation. Can you clarify which it is?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Paul Rosenzweig
> Sent from myMail app for Android
>
> Tuesday, 23 August 2016, 03:09PM -04:00 from Robin Gross [log in to unmask]:
>
>
> It is unfortunate that what began as one careless out-of-bounds comment from the chair on this list yesterday has had the
> effect of disenfranchising every NCSG’s member’s right to vote for or against any candidate, but that is why the appeal had
> to be launched: to restore meaning to our votes.
>
> The entire NCSG Executive Committee is responsible for monitoring the elections, providing oversight to the election, and
> specifically overseeing the chair’s performance of executive functions under NCSG’s Charter. Our charter is clear that it
> isn’t appropriate for the chair to unilaterally declare an interpretation of NOTA on this list - but it is especially
> disappointing that the interpretation provided renders every member’s vote for council meaningless. Further concerning was
> the dismissive attitude displayed against those questioning his interpretation and the claim that NCSG elections are merely
> symbolic gestures. But instead of fixing this unfortunate error, the chair seems to be digging in his heels on his
> interpretation of NOTA, which prevents members having the ability to vote for or against every candidate on the ballot. It
> is the least democratic interpretation of NOTA possible.
>
> No rationale has been provided by the chair as to why this interpretation is best for our members or how it serves our
> members’ interest.
>
> I brought this issue to the NCSG EC list yesterday and asked for a meeting to be scheduled so we could work through it.
> That request was denied and the chair said we’d use the email list to discus the issue instead, which is fine, except he
> declared the discussion closed within a few hours of opening it and before all the EC members could even wake-up to see the
> discussion let alone weigh in on this critical issue.
>
> As we face a new interpretation of NOTA that does not take democracy or elections seriously, but only as a symbolic
> gesture, where everyone who runs automatically gets a seat, irrespective of whether there is sufficient support from the
> members to be represented by that person, the group of 21 members lodged the formal appeal of this decision to try to get
> this election back on track and restore the voting rights of members. Now that the appeal has been launched the chair is
> calling for an EC meeting tomorrow, so I am hopeful we can get this straightened out quickly.
>
> If we can accept the definition of NOTA as explained by Avri, Rafik, and myself, who were the previous EC Chairs and were
> involved in the drafting of the charter, an interpretation which provides members REAL choice, not merely symbolic gestures
> in our elections, we probably don’t need to redo the ballots for this year, and we can just continue with the understanding
> those candidates who receive less votes than NOTA are not elected this year. So we can fix our ballots for next year, but
> use the NOTA interpretation which restores the right of members to approve (or not) of the candidates for this year.
>
> This seems to be to a reasonable compromise, which allows us go forward with the election now, but without the cloud of
> illegitimacy it will otherwise have if we use the new NOTA interpretation that disenfranchises our members. Let’s find a
> constructive path forward and try to work cooperatively to fix this, not spend more time pointing fingers at each other,
> but in fixing this error.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin Gross
> NCSG Executive Committee Member
>
>
>
> On Aug 23, 2016, at 8:13 AM, James Gannon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Sam I suggest you read the letter from all 3 previous chairs of the NCSG to the current EC (which has been dismissed by
> the current chair) on that point:
>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001083.html
>
> -James
>
> From: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]>
> Reply-To: Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tuesday 23 August 2016 at 16:08
> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the election process
>
> The Group of 21
>
>
|
