---- Original Message ----
From: Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]>
To: NCSG-DISCUSS <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tue, Aug 23, 2016 4:11 am
Subject: Re: *Important* NCSG 2016 Annual Elections - voting has started
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-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