+1 Stefanie, you echo my sentiments entirely. Best, -Michael __________________ Michael J. Oghia iGmena <http://igmena.org/> communications manager 2016 ISOC IGF returning ambassador Independent #netgov consultant & editor Istanbul, Turkey Skype: mikeoghia Twitter <https://www.twitter.com/MikeOghia> *|* LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mikeoghia> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 6:33 PM, Milan, Stefania <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear all > I have returned from a precious incommunicado week on the mountains to > a... mountain of emails concerning the NCSG elections. > > While it is great to see such heated debate around the future of our > leadership, it is also painful to realize how potentially dangerous this is > to our organization. Procedural issues are key, and I share the concerns > raised here by a number of colleagues, including Milton, Stephanie, and > Tatiana. I must admit I have only surveyed the many mails on the various > threads, but I do add my voice to the request of suspending the current > election and call for a new one with a ballot that gives members the chance > to cast individual votes. > > While I have no doubts about the good intentions of our chairman Tapani in > compiling the ballot, I am worried about what the future holds for this > group, in case of contested elections. Having just enough candidates to > fill the available seats isn't a reason good enough to go for bulk votes. > We need to be able to trust our representatives, and having a fair election > process is the first step in this direction. > > Apologies if I am stating the obvious, and much thanks to all those who > have spent and are spending much energies and time on this while many > others, me included, are on holidays--first of all, Tapani. Luckily he is > known to be a patient man. > > My two cents, Stefania > > > ---------------------- > Stefania Milan, PhD > University of Amsterdam || mediastudies.nl || > stefaniamilan.net || @annliffey > fingerprint: 7606 4526 3D24 20B2 C850 EA42 A497 CB70 04B5 A3B > > ________________________________________ > Da: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]> per conto di Tatiana > Tropina <[log in to unmask]> > Inviato: martedì 23 agosto 2016 17.10.22 > A: [log in to unmask] > Oggetto: Re: *Important* NCSG 2016 Annual Elections - voting has started > > Dear Kathy, thanks for your very valuable opinion. > with all respect, I would like to disagree again. The current ballot > together with Tapani's explanation means that we are voting for the > councillors "in bulk". > One can reject only three of them. Is this really a fair process? My > requests for clarifications or Milton requests for changing the ballot and > other people's requests are aimed to the same goal - make people being able > to vote for a particular candidate, not for a bunch of people. With us > voting in thus way the election are turning into a kind of farce - why do > we need *individual* statements of candidate, meetings and so on? > I think the argument goes in circles. A group of members (including me) > just submitted an official challenge to this election to the list. Among > the signatories are NCSG and NCUC EC and PC members, councillors and other > active members of this stakeholder group who respectfully disagree with > such a manner of voting. Let us get this argument to a formal process. > Warm regards > Tatiana > > On 23 August 2016 at 16:58, Kathy Kleiman <[log in to unmask]<mailto: > [log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > 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/di > splay/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 > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged > material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, > forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this > information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is > prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received > this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the > material from any computer. >