Dear colleagues, In order to help me to understand this (already highly enthropical) issue and to take an informed decision, could anyone please confirm the following statements as true/false? (If false, i'd appreciate a reference to the correct policy) 1. This is the last published version of the Charter: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter 2. Beyond the 4,2,1-weighted system set forth in the introduction of Sectiion 4, no voting method has been formally established. 3. Up to now, elections ave been conducted using a single-member plurality (aka “first past the post") system. 4. There are no provisions in the Charter for uncontested elections. 5. Some elections have incorporated a "none of the above" option in the ballot 6. There is no formal definition of the meaning of such "none of the above" option, nor of its "pseudo-candidate" status 7. If NotA is indeed a "pseudo-candidate", there is no formal definition on how the disputed position should be covered in case NotA is the first to pass the post. 8.a. Some members are advocating to replace the existing single- member plurality method by a form of approval or majority judgement voting[1]; or b. Some members assume that such form of amjority judgement hs been used in all elections up to the current one. Thanks!! Enrique ::Note:: [1] Such form would be: voters must rate every candidate using one of three values (1, 0, -1 or "approve", "neutral", "reject" -- '0' is assumed wherever the voter does not cast an option). Canddate with the highest (positive?) sum wins. Paraphrasing Fermat, this message is too narrow to analyze pros and cons of such system. The method is rather unusual 'in real life', but not unknown.