+1 @Tatiana.
I've already vote too but ready to restart again.
Le 23 août 2016 02:28, "Tatiana Tropina" <[log in to unmask]> a
écrit :

> Dear Kathy, dear all,
> as far as I am concerned the issue is not that the ballot looks different
> from the last year, the issue is a different interpretation of NOTA that
> makes election illegitimate. I personally rather prefer to revote (though I
> voted) and let us all to express opinions in a fair process.
> Calling elections "symbolic" and asking everyone to just move on instead
> of correcting mistake hampers the whole election process and challenges the
> legitimacy of the elections. As I stated before, I personally find the
> claims that elections are symbolic and that no matter how we cast the votes
> we all know the result insulting and not worthy of the leadership of the
> group that aims to defend interests of the non-commercial stakeholders.
> As someone who comes from a kind of undemocratic political regime, I do
> value the legitimacy of elections and the possibility to cast everyone's
> vote in a clear way and get it counted. "Let's fix it later for the next
> elections" is not the option that works for me.
> Warm regards
> Tatiana
>
>
>
> On 23 August 2016 at 08:42, Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I have returned from dropping off my son at college to find many messages
>> about the election.  I have several things to share. First, I would like to
>> thank our Chair, Tapani, for kicking off the elections in a timely and
>> efficient manner.  It is hard work, and important that we hold the election
>> on time. Thank you, Tapani, for your time and effort in urging people to
>> register for the election and now in distributing ballots in a fair and
>> timely way.
>>
>> Second, changing the ballot now could result in greater procedural
>> irregularities and unfairness. I have already voted; Bill said he has
>> already voted; others likely have already voted. I fear the procedural
>> irregularities that might result from re-starting the elections. That is
>> not a trivial or easy process. Should someone not receive a new ballot, or
>> should someone be traveling and not be able to recast their ballot, that
>> would be a substantive injustice -- a real unfairness - that I would argue
>> outweighs most procedural concerns.
>> Third, the ballot, to me, looks like other ballots we have received.
>>
>> This year's ballot looks like this:
>> "NCSG Election 2016
>>
>> **Chair**
>>
>> Select one of the following:
>>
>> 1. Tapani Tarvainen, Europe
>>
>> 2. None of the above
>>
>>
>> **Councillors**
>>
>> Select at most three of the following candidates.
>> You may also choose None of the above instead.
>>
>> 3. Rafik Dammak, Asia
>> 4. Edward Morris, Europe
>> 5. Stephanie Perrin, North America
>>
>> 6. None of the above"
>>
>> Last year's ballot looked like this (note: the only way to see the 2015
>> ballot is through the official results page still posted on the Tally
>> election system):
>>
>>  "2015 Annual Election of ICANN's Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG):
>>                 Please find the candidates statements here :
>>                 https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Candidate+Statements
>>
>>                 Important Remarks:
>>                 For NCSG Chair position: select 1 candidate only. If you select more than 1 candidate your vote will be invalid.
>>
>>                 For NCSG representatives to the GNSO Council you can select up to 3 candidates. If you select more than 3 candidates your vote will be invalid.
>>
>>                 You can change your vote till the deadline 14th September 23:59UTC, only the last selection will be counted.
>>
>>                 You will receive several reminders during the election with same link to your ballot. The weight of your vote is indicated in the ballot (1 for individual, 2 for small organisation and 4 for large organisation).
>>
>>                 1. One NCSG Chair  (1-year term)
>>                 Please select 1 choice:
>>  1: 36 votes    [] James Gannon
>>  2:292 votes    [] Tapani Tarvainen
>>  3: 16 votes    [] None of the above
>>
>>
>>                 2. Three  NCSG Representatives to the GNSO Council  (3 2-year term)
>>                 Please select 3 choices:
>>  4:247 votes    [] Amr Elsadr
>>  5:247 votes    [] Marilia Maciel
>>  6:265 votes    [] Stefania Milan
>>  7: 26 votes    [] None of the above"
>>
>> ==> This means that this year and last year, the ballot format was
>> essentially the same: an office, all names of candidates for that office,
>> then the option of "None of the above."  I specifically note that last
>> year, like this year, we did not follow each individual name with "None of
>> the Above." The NOTA followed the group of candidates.
>>
>> Further, last year, like this year, there were three candidates for 3
>> slots for NCSG Representatives to the GNSO Council.  We were fortunate then
>> to have these individuals ready to devote so much of their time and energy
>> to being Chair and Councilors; we are fortunate now.
>>
>> Overall, I see no material difference in this election ballot over last
>> year's.
>>
>> This year, like last year, we have three great candidates. Each of these
>> candidates has reams of support. I vote for letting the elections continue.
>> I also look forward to being able to return to the Policy Development Work
>> now taking place in the Working Groups -- there are many new messages and
>> much work that needs be done.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Kathy
>>
>>
>> On 8/22/2016 4:39 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>
>> Avri,
>>
>> Okay I think I am starting to understand where you are coming from;
>> basically you are saying that not providing NOTA option to individual
>> counselor on the ballot (because that of chair is clear) may not give the
>> avenue to factually review numbers of yes against number of no for each
>> candidates. So if there are total of 100 votes weight casted and their are
>> more NOTA for a candidate then such person will not be elected.
>>
>> If the above is what you are referring to and if that is the usual
>> tradition(which I think you call "old school"). Then it makes sense and yes
>> the current ballot would not provide a definite data source to achieve
>> that. However one could also assume that whoever voted and selected two
>> counselors instead of three is technically implying a NOTA for the
>> particular candidate - Although one may argue that it's not always the case
>> since one could actually decide to abstain on a particular candidate.
>>
>> Overall I think even though both "old school" and "new school" are not
>> clearly stated in the charter, the known devil should be maintained until
>> there is familiarity with and approval of the incoming angel ;-)
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Sent from my LG G4
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>>
>> On 22 Aug 2016 23:08, "avri doria" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22-Aug-16 15:25, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>>> > 3. If you want just two of the three candidates then you can still
>>> > just select the two leaving the person you don't want unselected.
>>> > (ref: from the instructions: Select *at most three* of the following
>>> > candidates...)
>>>
>>> this does not work.
>>>
>>> We do not require a quorum, so as long as every candidate gets at least
>>> one vote and as as long as there are only N candidates for N jobs,
>>> everyone gets elected. It take the choice out of the election to remove
>>> NOTA's function.
>>>
>>> The voted NOTA gives a demarcation which someone cannot fall below and
>>> still be elected.  That is why picking NOTA is on the ballot with the
>>> same weight as a single candidate. One intentionally needs to pick NOTA
>>> instead of one of the named candidates
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>
>>
>