Dear Tatiana, With great respect, people seem to be asking for different things. Milton wants an NOTA to follow each name; you want different wording. I have to say that, per my earlier message, substantively the ballots of last year and this year look the same to me -- a group of candidates followed by a NOTA option. Procedurally, I think there would be a *greater challenge to the legitimacy of this election* by restarting it in the middle. I urge us to redesign our ballot for the next election (and hopefully off list), but for this one, I wouldn't change it or fix it -- I would urge everyone to vote. Best, Kathy On 8/23/2016 3:26 AM, Tatiana Tropina wrote: > 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] > <mailto:[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 > <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] >> <mailto:[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 >> <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> >>