Hi,

I see several topics brought in this thread and I will restrict myself to
comment few of them.

First, I don't have a strong position about the "+1" as practice. However,
maybe it is important to clarify the process  which is  indicated in the
announcement
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Elections-2016:

- this period is for nomination only. it means that we are getting people
to nominate oneself or being nominated  to be candidate for the open
position. Basically, the goal is to get candidates, as much as possible to
provide choices.

- after the nomination period ends, there will be time for the candidates
who confirmed the nomination  to make a written statement responding to
several questions to indicate why they feel they are fit to the position.

- then comes the proper voting period, where the members who checked-in
(the process is still ongoing) will receive the vote ballot and can cast up
to 3 selections for councillors , 1 selection for chair position. more
explanation about those details will come in time

What many are doing now, it is just an expression of support for nomination
 which can be for various reasons. but this shouldn't prevent anyone from
putting his/her name for the election.

so basically, we are not voting now and  as it is written in the
announcement: "The selection will *not* occur through acclamation." People
may show support for a *nomination *but definitely that is not a vote and
can change their choice during the vote.

Candidates will make the statements by 16th August, and Tapani is going to
organize an open conference call where members will have chance to interact
candidates. I really encourage everyone to attend the latter or at least
listen to the recording if they cannot. also reading carefully the
candidates statements and making your mind.
Ask hard questions, more details, more clarifications, it is your right as
member and voter to do so. The vote is secret so you can decide later what
you think appropriate with all the elements you have.

We always try to encourage new folks to run for election. is accepting to
be candidate easy? of course not. Sharing my experience here,  for my first
election, I didn't get a good score. is that good for the ego or do we
accept that easily? you know probably  the answer :) however, even that
small number of votes for me  gave a confidence that I can do better in
future and kept being involved since then with the non-commercial. On other
hand, we also have several examples of people being selected in their first
election.

so please don't be overwhelmed by the number of +1 and think about running
for the election or encourage someone to do so.

Best,

Rafik


2016-08-03 23:44 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
[log in to unmask]>:

> 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]
> <[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
>
>
>