Hi Klaus, I think you mean 'conscience', am I correct? I don't think conscience and accountability are at odds with each other. I was not arguing for guided voting. But I do think a representative should be accountable to her/his community and consult it before making such a decision. I think this has not been done properly. Best, Niels On 08/03/2016 05:28 PM, Klaus Stoll wrote: > Dear Niels > > On 8/3/2016 11:02 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote > >> I was for instance very surprised, and quite shocked frankly, when one >> of our own councillors, as the only one on the GNSO, came out against >> the inclusion of a commitment to human rights in ICANNs bylaws. >> > Yes accountability is important, all for it, but we should not forget > another value: Continence. > Sometimes you have to go against what your group tells you because of > your continence. > I was a continuous objector to join the German army, and I paid for it, > but I still believe I was 100% right. > We should learn to respect and even foster people that act on their > ethical values, even if their brothers and sisters call for their head. > What is more important: Having people act on what they fundamentally > believe or act on what they have been told by the majority, however well > meaning it is. > > Again, we should learn to respect and value those amongst us that are > brave enough to follow their ethical compass. > > For what it's worth > > Yours > > Klaus >> On 08/03/2016 04:44 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> Having served on council now for two years, I think we should consider >>> better how we want to run these elections. DO people out there really >>> understand the work we do on council? How do we want our council >>> members to act? How do we want them to discuss issues on our monthly >>> policy calls? How collaborative should the decision making be? How do >>> we do succession planning and mentoring? These are issues that are >>> fundamentally important in my view, and should be discussed during the >>> campaign, not relegated to nominee's statements. >>> >>> I agree with Niels and Milton that if expressions of support are >>> suppressing candidates from coming forward, we need a rule against it. >>> We desperately need more people to run....there was only one contested >>> seat the last time I ran, when gender balance and regional balance were >>> taken into consideration. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Stephanie >>> >>> >>> On 2016-08-03 10:24, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. wrote: >>>> Dear Milton. >>>> >>>> I agree that this is a very fine procedural point, that should be >>>> managed clearly by the people responsible for the process, from the >>>> first mail on, so as to allow for others to consider participating. >>>> Maybe it should even become a written rule of internal netiquette. >>>> >>>> But in the meantime, coming from a Hyperdemocratic and >>>> Hyper-freedom-of-expression rights country like Costa Rica (and the >>>> re-election being a possibility for some incumbents) I done´t see >>>> anything wrong in feeling the temperature of the room early on as a >>>> way to recognise how hard some of them have worked in the past. We >>>> might have chosen the wrong place to make this type of comments, but >>>> space should be available for making them in the list anyhow. Maybe >>>> just under a different heading, like “I don´t like the re-election of >>>> incumbents” for example. >>>> >>>> Now, do we have an explicit rule as suggested by Niels and you? How >>>> and where do we express our support for that rule? Should we draw a >>>> redline and asked for a renewed call for the election process with the >>>> new rule and forget the past? Lets be practical and move forward ASAP. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez >>>> +506 8837 7176 >>>> Skype: carlos.raulg >>>> Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) >>>> On 3 Aug 2016, at 8:11, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>>> >>>>> I second Niels's views. I have refrained from expressing any opinion >>>>> about the nominations until the nominations are closed and we are >>>>> discussing candidate statements. I have always done so. >>>>> >>>>> --MM >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On >>>>>> Behalf Of >>>>>> Niels ten Oever >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 2, 2016 10:30 AM >>>>>> To: [log in to unmask] >>>>>> Subject: +1's and support >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Even though I think the regular display of +1's is a signal of >>>>>> mutual support >>>>>> and camaraderie. I have the feeling that sometimes it is drowning >>>>>> out other >>>>>> discussions about content on the list. >>>>>> >>>>>> May I also remind people that the voting happens later, so the >>>>>> candidates >>>>>> need your support is even more then. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm greatly looking forward to the statements of the candidates. >>>>>> >>>>>> All the best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Niels >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Niels ten Oever >>>>>> Head of Digital >>>>>> >>>>>> Article 19 >>>>>> www.article19.org >>>>>> >>>>>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 >>>>>> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9