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