[NCSG-EL-REF] None of the Above

Thu Jul 20 15:44:18 EEST 2017

Dear Matthew,

I think you've got it right. Actually we could and probably should
do both: changing the charter takes months at best, so for the
next election let's go with 1b and start planning for a long term
solution with a charter change.

Tapani

On Jul 20 19:19, 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.icann.org_en_improvements_ncsg-2Dcharter-2D05may11-2Den.pdf&d=DwIDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=MXOor_AzPHlgYZ-i459fEkfhts0fY1sdIeFgUiXYIu4&m=nLpUtuhca5hF6DtyMAG7Qgrskkho7jpw7_e5OGQfsHg&s=QIkj_eynzefahYvrDo7U9ySNw5wxf2DarOhgTgsXBb4&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