[NCSG-EL-REF] None of the Above

Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Fri Jul 21 09:12:23 EEST 2017 

Hi Tapani,

I think we already allowed voters to select less than 3 choices (you can
find in election ballot for 2015 that a voter can select up to 3
candidates) in previous elections. sorry I didn't follow the whole
discussion here so not clear what was the problem you are trying to fix.

Best,

Rafik

2017-07-20 21:44 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen via Election-reform <
election-reform at lists.ncsg.is>:

> 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=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6
> sJms7xcl4I5cM&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
> _______________________________________________
> Election-reform mailing list
> Election-reform at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/election-reform
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/attachments/20170721/dc13ec63/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Election-reform mailing list