Fully agree. And I think we should have a look at the voting history and
proceedings during the last GNSO period.

Examples that come to mind are the vote on human rights inclusion in the
bylaw, the vote on the GNSO chair, and an analysis on how the sexual
harrassment comments should be followed up.

So I hope the candidate councilors and existing councilors that put
themselves forward for re-election will elaborate on this.

Best,

Niels



On 08/03/2016 05:14 PM, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> Thanks Niels for raising the issue of accountability. As a Councilor,
> I often ask myself how, and to what extent, am I accountable to our
> community. I wonder how to best elicit what the community "wants",
> and how we can best represent it.
> 
> While NCSG, contrary to other constituencies, does not implement
> directed voting (in other words, each Councilor is free to vote as
> she pleases), we should also strive for "better" accountability. And
> accountability should be a topic of discussion in occasions like
> this... campaign.
> 
> Stefania
> 
> ________________________________________ Da: NCSG-Discuss
> <[log in to unmask]> per conto di Niels ten Oever
> <[log in to unmask]> Inviato: mercoledì 3 agosto 2016
> 17.02.16 A: [log in to unmask] Oggetto: Re: +1's and
> support
> 
> I'd like to add that I think it would also be very good if we would 
> increase the accountability of our councillors and leadership team.
> 
> I was for instance very surprised, and quite shocked frankly, when
> one of our own councillors, as the only one on the GNSO, came out
> against the inclusion of a commitment to human rights in ICANNs
> bylaws.
> 
> I do not think this represented the opinion of the NCSG, or at least 
> such a decision was not agreed upon.
> 
> NCSG has gained a lot of credibility, but it is also at risk of
> losing it at times. Better accountability can help us to prevent that
> from happening.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Niels
> 
> On 08/03/2016 04:44 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> 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]] 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
>> 
> 
> -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
> 
> Article 19 www.article19.org
> 
> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
> 
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity
> to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or
> privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination,
> distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in
> reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the
> intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of
> the sender. If you received this communication in error, please
> contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9