Hi, Votes for GNSO Chair is via secret ballot, not a public vote like motions before the Council. May not be so easy to take a look at them for any reason whatsoever. Thanks. Amr > On Aug 3, 2016, at 5:31 PM, Niels ten Oever <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Fully agree. And I think we should have a look at the voting history and > proceedings during the last GNSO period. > > Examples that come to mind are the vote on human rights inclusion in the > bylaw, the vote on the GNSO chair, and an analysis on how the sexual > harrassment comments should be followed up. > > So I hope the candidate councilors and existing councilors that put > themselves forward for re-election will elaborate on this. > > Best, > > Niels > > > > On 08/03/2016 05:14 PM, Milan, Stefania wrote: >> Thanks Niels for raising the issue of accountability. As a Councilor, >> I often ask myself how, and to what extent, am I accountable to our >> community. I wonder how to best elicit what the community "wants", >> and how we can best represent it. >> >> While NCSG, contrary to other constituencies, does not implement >> directed voting (in other words, each Councilor is free to vote as >> she pleases), we should also strive for "better" accountability. And >> accountability should be a topic of discussion in occasions like >> this... campaign. >> >> Stefania >> >> ________________________________________ Da: NCSG-Discuss >> <[log in to unmask]> per conto di Niels ten Oever >> <[log in to unmask]> Inviato: mercoledì 3 agosto 2016 >> 17.02.16 A: [log in to unmask] Oggetto: Re: +1's and >> support >> >> I'd like to add that I think it would also be very good if we would >> increase the accountability of our councillors and leadership team. >> >> 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. >> >> I do not think this represented the opinion of the NCSG, or at least >> such a decision was not agreed upon. >> >> NCSG has gained a lot of credibility, but it is also at risk of >> losing it at times. Better accountability can help us to prevent that >> from happening. >> >> Best, >> >> Niels >> >> 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 >> >> 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. >> > > -- > Niels ten Oever > Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9