What a bunch of bollocks for 4/4 sterling candidates who are all getting a seat anyway. I think mistrust on *this particular election* can be forgotten, since there's hardly any chances of having more NOTAs than votes on any particular candidate. I mean REALLY. What this hassle HAS been good for, is for getting more elaboration on different voting options and the consequences of them. Tapani explained those 8 cases really quite well. I feel that the NOTA option is much more crucial for elections that has only one candidate but for multiwinner elections it seems unnecessarily complex to have the NOTA-option at all. In fact, I think having these eight cases might be skewing the elections more than not having the option for NOTA, because of misunderstandings. But that's just my two cents. -Raoul On 25 August 2016 at 11:23, marie-laure Lemineur <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > +1 > Marie-laure > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 2:09 PM, William Drake <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> +100 if anyone doesn’t know Glen, she is fabulous and entirely impartial, >> full stop >> >> Bill >> >> On Aug 24, 2016, at 23:44, avri doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> >> On 24-Aug-16 17:07, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. wrote: >> >> I strongly support James comment. We should avoid this discussion >> up-front! >> >> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez >> +506 8837 7176 >> Skype: carlos.raulg >> Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) >> On 24 Aug 2016, at 16:31, James Gannon wrote: >> >> Glen in the only person who has access to the votes, and I would >> challenge anyone to even consider the possibility of her compromising >> the integrity of the ballots and the election in general. I >> personally don’t see this as a topic worth discussing. >> >> -James >> >> From: NCSG-Discuss >> <[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>< >> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>>> >> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline >> <[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask] >> <[log in to unmask]>>> >> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline >> <[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask] >> <[log in to unmask]>>> >> Date: Wednesday 24 August 2016 at 21:23 >> To: >> "[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>< >> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>>" >> <[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>< >> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>>> >> Subject: Re: *Important* NCSG 2016 Annual Elections - Voting rules >> >> Hi Ron, >> >> Sorry for the confusion, but I do not have any kind of deep mistrust >> for ICANN staff and did not intend for my remarks to be interpreted >> in that manner. >> >> Scepticism of the process is okay, however as I said in an email to >> this list yesterday, I consent to the legitimacy of the electoral >> process, I am willing to bear the costs of electoral participation, >> and I am fully prepared to use this to communicate my pleasure or >> displeasure with the candidate(s) that are presented before me. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: *Important* NCSG 2016 Annual Elections - Voting rules >> Local Time: August 24, 2016 9:00 PM >> UTC Time: August 24, 2016 8:00 PM >> From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]><mailto:r >> [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>> >> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>< >> mailto:[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>> >> >> >> >> On Wed, 24 Aug 2016, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >> >> Yes, I agree there should be a mechanism in place that allows voters >> to spoil their ballot paper, should they wish to do so. The number >> of spoiled ballots should be recorded. >> >> >> I would consider it improper for anyone, be they ICANN staff or a >> member of our community, to contact a voter about the contents of >> their ballot paper and to insinuate that they may have voted in an >> improper manner. If indeed it is possible to determine the number of >> 'invalid' ballot papers before the election is over, and who has cast >> a vote in such a manner, I am surprised this is the case. >> >> - Ayden >> >> hi Ayden, >> >> yes, with the mistrust that the NGSC has had for ICANN staff, it >> seems that >> trusting the election to a staff-run system would be considered >> non-optimum. >> >> i would prefer that an independent outside voting organization that >> would >> keep the partial results of elections in progress secret from members >> and >> ICANN staff and only report the final results. >> >> while this is possible in the bylaws, our organization has no >> independent >> funds to contract for this outside work. but this option should be on >> the table with the later discussion of voting procedures. >> >> -ron >> >> >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> >> >> ************************************************************* >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> [log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists), >> www.williamdrake.org >> ************************************************************* >> >> >