<div dir="ltr">Dear Kathy, thanks for your very valuable opinion. <div>with all respect, I would like to disagree again. The current ballot together with Tapani's explanation means that we are voting for the councillors "in bulk". </div><div>One can reject only three of them. Is this really a fair process? My requests for clarifications or Milton requests for changing the ballot and other people's requests are aimed to the same goal - make people being able to vote for a particular candidate, not for a bunch of people. With us voting in thus way the election are turning into a kind of farce - why do we need *individual* statements of candidate, meetings and so on? </div><div>I think the argument goes in circles. A group of members (including me) just submitted an official challenge to this election to the list. Among the signatories are NCSG and NCUC EC and PC members, councillors and other active members of this stakeholder group who respectfully disagree with such a manner of voting. Let us get this argument to a formal process. </div><div>Warm regards</div><div>Tatiana </div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 23 August 2016 at 16:58, Kathy Kleiman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Dear Tatiana,</p>
<p>With great respect, people seem to be asking for different
things. Milton wants an NOTA to follow each name; you want
different wording. I have to say that, per my earlier message,
substantively the ballots of last year and this year look the same
to me -- a group of candidates followed by a NOTA option.
Procedurally, I think there would be a *greater challenge to the
legitimacy of this election* by restarting it in the middle. <br>
</p>
<p>I urge us to redesign our ballot for the next election (and
hopefully off list), but for this one, I wouldn't change it or fix
it -- I would urge everyone to vote. <br>
</p>
<p>Best, Kathy<br>
</p>
<br>
<div>On 8/23/2016 3:26 AM, Tatiana Tropina
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Dear Kathy, dear all,
<div>as far as I am concerned the issue is not that the ballot
looks different from the last year, the issue is a different
interpretation of NOTA that makes election illegitimate. I
personally rather prefer to revote (though I voted) and let us
all to express opinions in a fair process.</div>
<div>Calling elections "symbolic" and asking everyone to just
move on instead of correcting mistake hampers the whole
election process and challenges the legitimacy of the
elections. As I stated before, I personally find the claims
that elections are symbolic and that no matter how we cast the
votes we all know the result insulting and not worthy of the
leadership of the group that aims to defend interests of the
non-commercial stakeholders. </div>
<div>As someone who comes from a kind of undemocratic political
regime, I do value the legitimacy of elections and the
possibility to cast everyone's vote in a clear way and get it
counted. "Let's fix it later for the next elections" is not
the option that works for me.</div>
<div>Warm regards</div>
<div>Tatiana </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On 23 August 2016 at 08:42, Kathy
Kleiman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" target="_blank">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div><div class="h5">
<p>Dear All, <br>
</p>
<p>I have returned from dropping off my son at college to
find many messages about the election. I have several
things to share. First, I would like to thank our Chair,
Tapani, for kicking off the elections in a timely and
efficient manner. It is hard work, and important that
we hold the election on time. Thank you, Tapani, for
your time and effort in urging people to register for
the election and now in distributing ballots in a fair
and timely way.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Second, changing the ballot now could result in greater
procedural irregularities and unfairness. I have already
voted; Bill said he has already voted; others likely
have already voted. I fear the procedural irregularities
that might result from re-starting the elections. That
is not a trivial or easy process. Should someone not
receive a new ballot, or should someone be traveling and
not be able to recast their ballot, that would be a
substantive injustice -- a real unfairness - that I
would argue outweighs most procedural concerns.</p>
Third, the ballot, to me, looks like other ballots we have
received.<br>
<br>
This year's ballot looks like this:<br>
<tt>"NCSG Election 2016 <br>
<br>
**Chair** <br>
<br>
Select one of the following: <br>
<br>
1.<input name="choice-1-default-1000" type="checkbox">
Tapani Tarvainen, Europe <br>
<br>
2.<input name="choice-2-default-1000" type="checkbox">
None of the above <br>
<br>
<br>
**Councillors** <br>
<br>
Select at most three of the following candidates. <br>
You may also choose None of the above instead. <br>
<br>
3.<input name="choice-3-default-1000" type="checkbox">
Rafik Dammak, Asia <br>
4.<input name="choice-4-default-1000" type="checkbox">
Edward Morris, Europe <br>
5.<input name="choice-5-default-1000" type="checkbox">
Stephanie Perrin, North America <br>
<br>
6.<input name="choice-6-default-1000" type="checkbox">
None of the above"</tt><br>
<br>
Last year's ballot looked like this (note: the only way to
see the 2015 ballot is through the official results page
still posted on the Tally election system):<br>
<pre> "2015 Annual Election of ICANN's Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG):
Please find the candidates statements here :
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Candidate+Statements" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/di<wbr>splay/gnsononcomstake/Candidat<wbr>e+Statements</a>
Important Remarks:
For NCSG Chair position: select 1 candidate only. If you select more than 1 candidate your vote will be invalid.
For NCSG representatives to the GNSO Council you can select up to 3 candidates. If you select more than 3 candidates your vote will be invalid.
You can change your vote till the deadline 14th September 23:59UTC, only the last selection will be counted.
You will receive several reminders during the election with same link to your ballot. The weight of your vote is indicated in the ballot (1 for individual, 2 for small organisation and 4 for large organisation).
1. One NCSG Chair (1-year term)
Please select 1 choice:
1: 36 votes [] James Gannon
2:292 votes [] Tapani Tarvainen
3: 16 votes [] None of the above
2. Three NCSG Representatives to the GNSO Council (3 2-year term)
Please select 3 choices:
4:247 votes [] Amr Elsadr
5:247 votes [] Marilia Maciel
6:265 votes [] Stefania Milan
7: 26 votes [] None of the above"
</pre>
==> This means that this year and last year, the ballot format
was essentially the same: an office, all names of candidates for
that office, then the option of "None of the above." I specifically
note that last year, like this year, we did not follow each
individual name with "None of the Above." The NOTA followed the
group of candidates.
Further, last year, like this year, there were three candidates for
3 slots for NCSG Representatives to the GNSO Council. We were
fortunate then to have these individuals ready to devote so much of
their time and energy to being Chair and Councilors; we are
fortunate now.
Overall, I see no material difference in this election ballot over
last year's.
This year, like last year, we have three great candidates. Each of
these candidates has reams of support. I vote for letting the
elections continue. I also look forward to being able to return to
the Policy Development Work now taking place in the Working Groups
-- there are many new messages and much work that needs be done.
Best regards,
Kathy</div></div><div><div><div><div class="h5">
<div>On 8/22/2016 4:39 PM, Seun Ojedeji
wrote:
</div>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<p dir="ltr">Avri,</p>
<p dir="ltr">Okay I think I am starting to understand where you
are coming from; basically you are saying that not providing
NOTA option to individual counselor on the ballot (because that
of chair is clear) may not give the avenue to factually review
numbers of yes against number of no for each candidates. So if
there are total of 100 votes weight casted and their are more
NOTA for a candidate then such person will not be elected.</p>
<p dir="ltr">If the above is what you are referring to and if that
is the usual tradition(which I think you call "old school").
Then it makes sense and yes the current ballot would not provide
a definite data source to achieve that. However one could also
assume that whoever voted and selected two counselors instead of
three is technically implying a NOTA for the particular
candidate - Although one may argue that it's not always the case
since one could actually decide to abstain on a particular
candidate.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Overall I think even though both "old school" and
"new school" are not clearly stated in the charter, the known
devil should be maintained until there is familiarity with and
approval of the incoming angel ;-)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my LG G4
Kindly excuse brevity and typos</p>
</div></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5">On 22 Aug 2016 23:08, "avri doria" <<a href="mailto:avri@apc.org" target="_blank">avri@apc.org</a>>
wrote:
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On
22-Aug-16 15:25, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
> 3. If you want just two of the three candidates then
you can still
> just select the two leaving the person you don't want
unselected.
> (ref: from the instructions: Select *at most three* of
the following
> candidates...)
this does not work.
We do not require a quorum, so as long as every candidate
gets at least
one vote and as as long as there are only N candidates for N
jobs,
everyone gets elected. It take the choice out of the
election to remove
NOTA's function.
The voted NOTA gives a demarcation which someone cannot fall
below and
still be elected. That is why picking NOTA is on the ballot
with the
same weight as a single candidate. One intentionally needs
to pick NOTA
instead of one of the named candidates
avri
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
software.
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antiviru<wbr>s</a>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div>