Wow, this thread is a lot to go through!  I agree with Avri on this.  If we are going to go through elections for what is an acclamation process, let us at least try to make the ballot meaningful.  I look forward to hearing from the EC on this matter.  It would have been good if they had taken a more active and public role in planning the all candidates meeting as well. 

I really don't think people understand how the ballot works, as it requires further explanation of how we decide things geographically and by gender.  For instance, the only contested "seat" two years ago when I was first elected (and I realize we don't vote for seats per se, we just strive to the extent possible for regional limits) was the North American one.  Folks voted for both me and Sam, no doubt not understanding that this effectively cancelled their vote.  I think the ballot needs to be a lot more clear.  If we are going through this process this time around, just to satisfy our Charter requirements, I would suggest that it undermines the attempts that some of us are making to get some issues onto the table, and discuss what really needs to happen in NCSG. There is no real need to be transparent or discuss anything substantively if there is no way for people to express satisfaction without spoiling their ballot.  As Tapani has indicated, I would take a strong message home if NOTA won over me, but there is no point in people spoiling their ballots.  All they have to do is not vote.

As for the discussion on the IANA transition, I would like to support James in demanding further explanation.  I don't think anyone could have predicted accurately at the time (or even now) what the outcome is going to be. Several of the leaders of the CCWG were needlessly made anxious about the rhetoric surrounding our voting; it is not every day these folks come and ask me how I plan to vote, (since I was not an active member of the CCWG) and they did take the time to do that in Marakech. 

I have repeatedly said in the past few days that it is a shame that we do not have more people nominated.  It is a shame that, as Avri say, we cannot find enough people willing to stand for election.  We need to ask ourselves why that is and fix it. 

Stephanie Perrin

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

Hi,

Happy to hear that the EC is meeting on this.  Though I do remind you
all EC decisions need to be vetted by the membership.

The easiest decision is that the NOTA, despite what wikipedia may say,
functions as it always did in NCSG Council elections:  as as a candidate
marker and any candidate who does worse than NOTA does not get elected. 
Has never happened and is likely not to happen this time, but at least
the possibility means that the election is not just a symbolic cover for
our inability to find enough people willing to stand for election.

Since people can vote as often as they like clarifications do not spoil
the vote as once can revote their ballot given their better understanding.

avri


On 22-Aug-16 10:45, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 02:41:31PM +0000, Mueller, Milton L ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

Let me also remind you and Tapani that elections are explicitly part
of the NCSG EC’s responsibilities. They are not decisions that
Tapani can take unilaterally. Let’s hear from the EC as a whole on
this; perhaps you need to convene as a group. Better do it quickly

I already called for the EC to handle this. I'll let you all know
of the outcome.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus