[NCSG-EL-REF] None of the Above

[Robin Gross]

Thanks, Tapani.  I think we may want to approach this from a different angle.  Instead of trying to come up with an interpretation for NOTA, let’s come up with a mechanism that clearly achieves our goal.  It probably isn’t even called “NOTA”.

What we are actually after is a way to make sure that every candidate faces a Yes or No option, so someone can’t win by default, and there must actually be approval of the candidate by the membership to be our representative.  

What is the best way to device that goal in the ballot?  Perhaps simply a yes-no-abstain choice for each candidate would suffice?  Then the x candidates with the most yes votes are winners (as long as they have more yes than no votes).  We would need a procedure for how to handle the theoretical case in which there isn’t enough candidates approved by the membership to fill slots, but that is easily devised.

Thanks,
Robin


> On Jun 26, 2017, at 9:46 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via Election-reform <election-reform at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I'd like to get some feedback on the charter requirements.
> 
> As you see there's no mention of NotA there. I can think
> of three ways to interpret it:
> 
> A. The charter does not allow NotA at all.
> 
> B. NotA can be considered a candidate.
> 
> C. NotA can be thought of as allowed implicitly, by default,
>   as most elections in general have something like it.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> Other interpretations I haven't thought of?
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Jun 26 11:00, Tapani Tarvainen via Election-reform (election-reform at lists.ncsg.is) wrote:
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> As time is running short, I think it's better to start with
>> potentially most difficult issues and ones that *must* be
>> resolved before the netx elections. So let's have a go at NotA.
>> 
>> Initially I have two criteria I think must be met:
>> 
>> (1) Compatibility with our charter, at least some reasonable
>> interpretation of it.
>> 
>> (2) Clarity. It should be easy to understand what the rules
>> actually mean in any foreseeable situation.
>> 
>> Feel free to suggest additions or comment on those.
>> 
>> Regarding the first, here's the most relevant part of our Charter:
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> The full charter is here, feel free to point out other things
>> there you think are relevant:
>> 
>> https://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf
>> 
>> -- 
>> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170626/2543dd98/attachment.html>