+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 >>> >> >> >