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]] 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