[NCSG-EL-REF] None of the Above

Poncelet Ileleji pileleji at ymca.gm
Thu Jul 20 15:25:23 EEST 2017 

Dear Matthew,

I want to concur with your suggestions.

Kind Regards

Poncelet

On 20 July 2017 at 12:19, Matthew Shears via Election-reform <
election-reform at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:

> Thanks Tapani for following up on this.
>
> My suggestion would be that we either change the Charter and have a
> complete redesign, or go for 1b as an "interpretation" of the process -
> which we could perhaps append to the Charter.
>
>
>
> On 20/07/2017 14:53, Tapani Tarvainen via Election-reform wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> As the NotA discussion didn't seem to progress, I asked ICANN legal
>> team to help, if they could at least help to narrow down our options,
>> what we can and cannot do with our current charter.
>>
>> The message below contains the entire conversation I had with them.
>>
>> To summarize, it seems we'd have to change the charter if we want to
>> use any of the more creative NotA alternatives, but allowing
>> abstention (voting for fewer than N cancidates) just might be ok.
>>
>> Tapani
>>
>> ----- Forwarded message from Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran at icann.org>
>> -----
>>
>> Tapani,
>>
>> Thanks for your note. I’ve had a chance to discuss this with John
>> Jeffrey, and he asked me to get back to you.
>>
>> Since the charter does not provide for assigning a vote to
>> none/abstain/negative, we’d agree that that options 2 and 3 should be ruled
>> out. However we’re not sure there’s enough to go on in the NCSG election
>> procedures for us to be able to offer a definitive interpretation of the
>> appropriateness of option 1 or 1b.
>>
>> Common sense and fairness would dictate that no voter should be compelled
>> to vote in favor of any candidate (or candidates) against the voter’s
>> wishes, but it’s difficult to reconcile that with the rule in the
>> procedures that says that each voter "must assign 1 vote to each of N
>> candidates”.
>>
>> A good argument could be made that there’s nothing in the procedures that
>> says that a ballot must be invalidated if a voter selects fewer than the
>> designated number of candidates, but that quickly gets into the area of
>> trying to apply common sense and fairness rather than a straightforward
>> application of the words of the charter.
>>
>> We might guess that the rule in question was meant to clarify that if
>> there were multiple seats up for election then voters could not give more
>> than one vote to any one candidate, but unfortunately that doesn’t come
>> through clearly in the charter as written. Hopefully this can be resolved
>> within your stakeholder group, and the ICANN organization policy support
>> and legal teams are available to support you.
>>
>> Thank you again for checking with us about this. Please let us know if we
>> can be of any other assistance.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Daniel Halloran
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 14, 2017, at 06:11, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Daniel,
>>>
>>> Of course I understand you can't take a stand on the fairness or
>>> goodness of the rule and I wasn't asking you to. Indeed one part of
>>> the issue is potential need for charter amendment, but first we need
>>> to know what we can do with current charter.
>>>
>>> So, if I understand correctly you think only option (1) of the
>>> ones I listed would be allowed according to the current wording
>>> of the charter?
>>>
>>> In particular do you think the wording "assign 1 vote" does
>>> not allow that vote to be positive or negative (option 3b)?
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>>
>>> Tapani
>>>
>>> On Jul 13 19:58, Daniel Halloran (daniel.halloran at icann.org) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tapani,
>>>>
>>>> Just a quick note to confirm that we’ve received your note and we’re
>>>> looking in to this.
>>>>
>>>> I have not had a chance yet to confer with John on this, but I have
>>>> taken a first look at section 4.3 of the NCSG election procedures at your
>>>> request.
>>>>
>>>> It seems on first reading that the procedures clearly state that each
>>>> member "must assign 1 vote to each of N candidates”. (Or 2 or 4 votes for
>>>> small and large organizations.) The procedures do not say that each member
>>>> “MAY" assign 1 vote each to “up to” N candidates. There also does not seem
>>>> to be any provision for abstaining or voting for “none of the above”.
>>>>
>>>> Note please that we would not be giving any opinion on whether that’s a
>>>> good rule, or a fair one, just sharing our understanding of the plain
>>>> language of the procedures. There’s no such thing as a perfect set of
>>>> procedures without any ambiguity or room for disagreement. Please also keep
>>>> in mind that the ICANN Ombudsman is available if any members have concerns
>>>> about fairness.
>>>>
>>>> I’ll check this preliminary reading with John, and if you have any
>>>> additional information or feedback on this we’d be happy to hear it.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Daniel Halloran
>>>> Deputy General Counsel
>>>> ICANN
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 8, 2017, at 05:35, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear John,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>
>>>>> Below are the alternatives that have been suggested so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll illustrate them by assuming 3 slots (N=3) and 5 candidates (A-E)
>>>>> on the ballot. (This is for council election, which is the difficult
>>>>> one. Chair is easier case, I'll leave it until later.)
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) Every voter has to select exactly 3 candidates or the ballot is
>>>>> invalid, no abstention option:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] A
>>>>> [ ] B
>>>>> [ ] C
>>>>> [ ] D
>>>>> [ ] E
>>>>>
>>>>> (1b) As above but abstention allowed, i.e., if fewer than 3 candidates
>>>>> are selected it does not invalidate the ballot.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) As above but with "None of the Above" added:
>>>>>
>>>>> [ ] A
>>>>> [ ] B
>>>>> [ ] C
>>>>> [ ] D
>>>>> [ ] E
>>>>> [ ] None of the Above
>>>>>
>>>>> This has variants:
>>>>>
>>>>> (2a) If NotA is selected, no others may be selected.
>>>>> (2b) Exactly 3 must be selected, one of which may be NotA.
>>>>> (2c) Up to 3 (0-3) may be selected, possibly including NotA.
>>>>>
>>>>> There're also alternative interpretations of what NotA means in
>>>>> results:
>>>>>
>>>>> (2.1) NotA votes are ignored in determining results (treated as
>>>>> abstention).
>>>>> (2.2) NotA is treated like a real candidate, and if it gets more
>>>>>      votes than 3rd real candidate one slot is left empty.
>>>>> (2.3) All candidates who get less votes than NotA will not be elected.
>>>>>
>>>>> Additional variant to all those: allow less than 3 votes
>>>>> if NotA is selected (or equivalently, add multiple NotAs).
>>>>>
>>>>> (3) Yes-no-abstain selection for each candidate:
>>>>>
>>>>> A  [ ] yes   [ ] no   [ ] abstain
>>>>> B  [ ] yes   [ ] no   [ ] abstain
>>>>> C  [ ] yes   [ ] no   [ ] abstain
>>>>> D  [ ] yes   [ ] no   [ ] abstain
>>>>> E  [ ] yes   [ ] no   [ ] abstain
>>>>>
>>>>> (Alternatively, leave "[ ] abstain" off the ballot and assume
>>>>> it as default if neither yes or no is selected.)
>>>>>
>>>>> (3b) As above but require exactly 3 yes or no votes.
>>>>> (3c) As above but require at most 3 yes or no votes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Votes would be counted by subtracting "no" votes from "yes"
>>>>> votes for each candidate. A variant would be requiring
>>>>> sum to be positive or candidate would not be elected.
>>>>> (Other vote counting schemes could be devised, but have
>>>>> not been proposed so far.)
>>>>>
>>>>> All except (1) and (1b) could result in fewer than N seats
>>>>> being filled, so we'd have to also specify what to do in
>>>>> that case. Two suggestions have been made: either a new
>>>>> election or let the Executive Committee fill the seat
>>>>> (which is also what happens when someone resigns midterm).
>>>>>
>>>>> If all this seems much ado about nothing I won't disagree,
>>>>> but our last election was almost invalidated by this...
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>
>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 08 08:15, John Jeffrey (john.jeffrey at icann.org) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tapani,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course I know you, and we are happy to look at how we might help
>>>>>> with your request.  Please do send the alternative interpretations - we
>>>>>> will look at this quickly and get back to you asap.  I am copying Dan
>>>>>> Halloran as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> JJ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2017, at 12:55 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <
>>>>>>> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear John,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You may not remember me though we've met a few times: I am currently
>>>>>>> Chair of Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of GNSO (NCSG).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm writing to you because we have a disagreement about the
>>>>>>> interpretation of election procedures defined in NCSG Charter and we
>>>>>>> need to have it resolved soon - elections are due in little over a
>>>>>>> month and we'd need to resolve this in two weeks or so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I appreciate you probably cannot give a formal legal opinion this
>>>>>>> fast, but even a tentative view from you would be most helpful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The issue may appear trivial, but as things stand it may escalate
>>>>>>> to ridiculous proportions. (I don't care much *how* this is resolved,
>>>>>>> as long as it is done somehow in time, although I would prefer to
>>>>>>> stay as clearly as possible within the letter of the charter text.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll quote the relevant portion of NCSG Charter below; the full
>>>>>>> charter is here:
>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.ic
>>>>>>> ann.org_en_improvements_ncsg-2Dcharter-2D05may11-2Den.pdf&
>>>>>>> d=DwIDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=
>>>>>>> MXOor_AzPHlgYZ-i459fEkfhts0fY1sdIeFgUiXYIu4&m=nLpUtuhca5hF6D
>>>>>>> tyMAG7Qgrskkho7jpw7_e5OGQfsHg&s=QIkj_eynzefahYvrDo7U9ySNw5wx
>>>>>>> f2DarOhgTgsXBb4&e=.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The contentious issue is simple: does this allow abstention, some
>>>>>>> kind
>>>>>>> of "None of the Above" -option (and what kind) or negative votes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------8<---------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4.3 Election for NCSG GNSO Council Representatives (size, number, and
>>>>>>> distribution of votes):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the discussion below, N refers to the number of seats that need to
>>>>>>> be elected. Optimally N will equal 3 seats in years with normal
>>>>>>> rotation. Any number of reasons can cause this number to vary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • NCSG members classified as “individuals” will be given N votes and
>>>>>>> must assign 1 vote to each of N candidates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • NCSG members classified as “small organizations” will be given 2N
>>>>>>> votes and must assign exactly 2 votes to each of N candidates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • NCSG members classified as “large organizations” will be given 4N
>>>>>>> votes and must assign exactly 4 votes to each of N candidates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4.4 Election of NCSG Chair (size and number of votes):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • NCSG members classified as “individuals” will be given 1 vote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • NCSG members classified as “small organizations” will be given 2
>>>>>>> votes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • NCSG members classified as “large organizations” will be given 4
>>>>>>> votes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> • Members must cast all their votes for a single candidate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------------------------------8<---------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any help would be much appreciated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I could also provide alternative interpretations NCSG members
>>>>>>> have suggested if it'd be easier for you to comment on them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>> Chair, Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>
>>
>> ----- End forwarded message -----
>> _______________________________________________
>> Election-reform mailing list
>> Election-reform at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/election-reform
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> http://www.avg.com
>>
>
> --
> Matthew Shears
> matthew at intpolicy.com
> +447712472987
> Skype:mshears
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Election-reform mailing list
> Election-reform at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/election-reform
>



-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/attachments/20170720/7342ddad/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Election-reform mailing list