<div dir="ltr"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">If there are two candidates, one for each SG, and CSG votes as a bloc, as they almost always do, there is no scenario where the NCSG candidate wins. So that seems a fairly terrible idea.</span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The NCSG acts as a bloc too. I think this is how it really goes at the moment and will probably do so in the future, too. I think rotating the NCPH seat between CSG and NCSG would be the only way to really avoid this conflict. The problem with this particular election is, that it's hard to reach consensus on one person from "opposite" stakeholder groups and I find it unnecessarily difficult process, with no elected board member as long as consensus is not reached.</div><div><br></div><div>-Raoul</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 22 February 2018 at 06:29, David Cake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dave@davecake.net" target="_blank">dave@davecake.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space">We don’t just need 8+ votes for strategic reasons - it is the rules. A first round of voting that will not succeed is best done informally if at all, and if CSG is going to bloc vote (as they very likely will in any formal vote) it is never in NCSGs interest to allow a free vote. <div>If there is a final round with one candidate from each SG, the result will be stalemate (if NCSG all votes together) or the NCSG candidate loses (if we allow a free vote and there are defections). If there are two candidates, one for each SG, and CSG votes as a bloc, as they almost always do, there is no scenario where the NCSG candidate wins. So that seems a fairly terrible idea. </div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div></font></span><div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">David</font></span><div><div class="h5"><br><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 20 Feb 2018, at 4:17 am, Raoul Plommer <<a href="mailto:plommer@gmail.com" target="_blank">plommer@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_-3489853277737157309Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr">Ok, I totally agree that we need 8+ votes on the particular candidate to avoid NCA having too much power and I did get that from Farzi's explanation. Sorry for being late to answer.<div>Could we use that 1st round with more candidates for seeking that rough consensus before the final round? Make it a more official that way. I think it would create more buzz and consensus reaching than without the second round.</div><div><br></div><div>In the final round there would be only one candidate from each SG. We could have just one week between the first and second round.<div><br></div><div>-Raoul</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 16 February 2018 at 07:36, David Cake <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dave@davecake.net" target="_blank">dave@davecake.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">The only problem with the procedure is that it takes the really difficult parts of the process, and turns it into ‘seek consensus’, which practically may need a lot more detail. Though some of that detail may be more useful to do ad hoc depending on number of interested candidates etc, and there probably really is no useful way to make consensus easier to find purely through process, and it’s valuable to make it very clear tha5 consensus is required.<div><br></div><div> Also, while full consensus is clearly ideal, should probably be ‘rough consensus’, we need a clear 8+ votes not unanimity (we don’t want to allow any single councillor to derail the process). But I thoroughly agree that seeking rough consensus between the SGs before the ballot is the only practical functional process. <div>Running against NOTA serves as a useful check on attempts to game negotiations, and is needed for formality. </div><div><br></div><div>David<br><br><div id="m_-3489853277737157309m_-6638372193377767972AppleMailSignature">Sent from my iPad</div><div><div class="m_-3489853277737157309h5"><div><br>On 13 Feb 2018, at 7:49 am, farzaneh badii <<a href="mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com" target="_blank">farzaneh.badii@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default"><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Thank you Raoul. Your proposal was based on having multiple candidates if I am not mistaken. When we did our research, based on past experience (3 elections and some of them reached deadlocks, Rafik can elaborate) having multiple candidates to vote on is not in the interest of NCSG. What worked well for NCSG and CSG in previous elections is to discuss until they come up with one consensus candidate to vote on. </font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">As to NOTA, it has been used at GNSO chair election and during the last Board seat election NCSG discussed using it. it is common practice in GNSO elections.</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Threshold of 8: 6 NCSG Council members, 6 CSG council members, 1 NCA . 13 to vote, the majority is 8, [ it also avoid the risk that NCA plays a tie-breaker here].</font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Based on our research again, it does make sense to have an election with one candidate. We have always insisted on holding elections in the past and it is needed for formality and procedural matter. </font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">If the consensus candidate has been found and goes through the election, he or she will most probably beat the NOTA. If not, there certainly is a problem and it makes sense to re-start the process to solve that between the 2 groups.</font></div></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Best</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Farzaneh </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">(this message is also being sent to NCSG-PC, PC can see Raoul's response below.)</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="m_-3489853277737157309m_-6638372193377767972gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Raoul Plommer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:plommer@gmail.com" target="_blank">plommer@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I'm a little disappointed, that neither you or Rafik even commented on my earlier proposal, which I think is somewhat clearer.<br><br><div>Questions on your proposal:</div><div><br></div><div>1) Why is there a NOTA? Has that actually ever made things easier?</div><div>2) Why is there a threshold of 8 votes for winning?</div><div>3) Does a joint NCPH interview mean that candidates and interviewers will be from both SGs?</div><div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">NCSG, CSG and NCA leaders have to agree on one consensus</div><div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">candidate to run for the election.</div></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>4) This actually says that consensus would be reached for only candidate and then it would not make sense to have elections anymore. I think you meant that both SGs decide on their best candidate but what would then be the consensus candidate of the NCA?</div><div><br></div><div>I think the worst part of your proposal is, that it will be relatively hard to secure all of those eight votes and if it doesn't happen, the whole thing is restarted god knows how many times.</div><div><br>For those of you that missed it, here's my proposal:</div><div><br></div><div>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial"><div><i>Let's have two rounds, where on the second round we have only the two candidates that got most votes in the first round. In case the first round results in a tie of three or more candidates, the SG that has two or more candidates has to choose one for the second round. Both SGs would have one candidate each on the second round, despite the results in the first round.<br><br></i></div><i>Having the first round with more than two candidates, means that all the NCPH councilors get a say on the best candidates, instead of just their own stakeholder group. This way, we can get the opinion of all the NCPH councilors on the prospective candidates through votes, instead of trying to guess which of the SG's candidates would go through better.<br><br></i></div><i><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">Also, we could make the vote anonymously, to also avoid peer pressure from inside the stakeholder group. The amount of candidates for the first round can not exceed the amount of GNSO councilors in the SG.</span>
</i><br><br></div><div>-Raoul</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="m_-3489853277737157309m_-6638372193377767972h5">On 12 February 2018 at 02:34, farzaneh badii via NCSG-EC <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ncsg-ec@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">ncsg-ec@lists.ncsg.is</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><div class="m_-3489853277737157309m_-6638372193377767972h5"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">We need to keep the Board seat 14 election procedure simple and based on our past experience. Rafik and I came up with this procedure to propose to the small group which we decided to convene during the intersessional. We want to kick start that group by Wednesday so if you have any comments let me know before that. Note that you can still send your comments when we have started the group, we can consider them when discussing with the drafting team. we will meet in PR to finalize this. </font></div><div><br></div><div>The procedure is attached. </div><span class="m_-3489853277737157309m_-6638372193377767972m_-8498317819419811881HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div style="background-color:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;background-position:initial initial;background-repeat:initial initial"><span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"><br></span></div>
<br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div></font></span></div><span class="m_-3489853277737157309m_-6638372193377767972m_-8498317819419811881HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><div class="m_-3489853277737157309m_-6638372193377767972m_-8498317819419811881m_-1012245178397555927gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div></div></div></div>
</font></span></div>
<br></div></div>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
NCSG-EC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NCSG-EC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">NCSG-EC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ncsg-ec</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div></div><span><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>______________________________<wbr>_________________</span><br><span>NCSG-PC mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ncsg-pc</a></span><br></div></blockquote></span></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>