NCSG Election Clarifications
Stephanie E Perrin
stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA
Tue Jun 2 09:20:34 EEST 2020
The ballot does not say none of the above any more, it says abstain.
Stephanie
On 2020-06-02 10:02 a.m., Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> Liz, I understand your disappointment, but factually you are quite wrong.
>
> To say that Stephanie is Robin’s “favored candidate” – or the favorite
> of anyone on the NCSG EC – is almost laughably incorrect. Let me
> assure you, Robin is just trying to make the election conform to the
> rules, she is not promoting favorites.
>
> I agree with James that all this complaining is a bit late in the day.
> If people want to get into the election then they need to get into it,
> and not be coy and worry about whether someone else is running. The
> underlying problem here is not just the rigidity of the charter, but
> also the lack of alternative candidates.
>
> I do have a constructive suggestion to make. If people are concerned
> about this weird situation produced by the gender diversity rule, then
> one option is to vote “none of the above” for the candidate you object
> to. Let’s suppose that a candidate gets 50% or more of these “votes of
> no confidence.” In such a case, the candidate would have a strong
> incentive to re-evaluate the situation and perhaps drop out and let
> the EC appoint another person. Of course that appointment would have
> to conform to the rules, but the “none of the above” vote would allow
> us to avoid an “automatic” election of anyone.
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> *On Behalf Of *Liz
> Orembo
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 2, 2020 7:18 AM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: NCSG Election Clarifications
>
> Hi Amir,
>
> I'm sorry it looks like im responding to your email. My email is in
> response to the whole thread and esp on Robin's clarification.
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 2:13 PM Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja
> <mailto:aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja>> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Grace. I appreciate the clarification.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Amr
>
>
>
> On Jun 2, 2020, at 1:07 PM, Grace Githaiga
> <ggithaiga at hotmail.com <mailto:ggithaiga at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Not at all Amr. And I was not refering to you. I actually
> appreciate your interpretation. I just happened to respond on
> your response.
>
> I have read the different emails from different people and for
> me, this is a good debate because we are now forced to
> scrutinize the bylaws. I hope this sets the record straight Amr.
>
> Rgds
>
> Grace
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Grace Githaiga*
>
> Twitter: @ggithaiga
>
> Skype: gracegithaiga
>
> Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gracegithaiga
>
> ././*/.the most important office in a democracy is the
> citizen. So, you see, that’s what our democracy demands. It
> needs you!----Barrack Obama./*
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja
> <mailto:aelsadr at icannpolicy.ninja>>
> *Sent:* 02 June 2020 2:03 PM
> *To:* Grace Githaiga <ggithaiga at hotmail.com
> <mailto:ggithaiga at hotmail.com>>
> *Cc:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU><NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>>
> *Subject:* Re: NCSG Election Clarifications
>
> Hi Grace,
>
> Apologies if that is the impression I gave. I assure you, that
> was not my intent. I’m not trying to justify anything, really.
> Only trying to explain my understanding of the Bylaws as I
> have read them. When I do attempt to interpret them, and share
> that interpretation with the NCSG membership, I do my best to
> provide references, so that our members may read the relevant
> sections for themselves.
>
> I’m not, of course, infallible. I may make a mistake, misread
> something, misinterpret its intent or even overlook another
> relevant part of the Bylaws, so pointing to references also
> helps others fill in gaps I may have unintentionally left.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
>
> On Jun 2, 2020, at 12:58 PM, Grace Githaiga
> <ggithaiga at hotmail.com <mailto:ggithaiga at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Interesting debate! These clarifications are good as they
> help in scrutinizing and understanding of the bylaws. We
> are seeing different interpretations mostly trying to
> justify positions that the different people are taking.
> It would be important not to bend them just to suit what
> we want.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *Grace Githaiga*
>
> Twitter: @ggithaiga
>
> Skype: gracegithaiga
>
> Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/gracegithaiga
>
> ././*/.the most important office in a democracy is the
> citizen. So, you see, that’s what our democracy demands.
> It needs you!----Barrack Obama./*
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>> on behalf of Amr
> Elsadr <aelsadr at ICANNPOLICY.NINJA
> <mailto:aelsadr at ICANNPOLICY.NINJA>>
> *Sent:* 02 June 2020 1:26 PM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>>
> *Subject:* Re: NCSG Election Clarifications
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> On Jun 2, 2020, at 6:29 AM, Tapani Tarvainen
> <ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO
> <mailto:ncsg at TAPANI.TARVAINEN.INFO>> wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
>
>
>
> Second, the one-year term does not count in term limit
> in this case,
> as per ICANN Bylaws 11.3(b). That is, whoever gets it
> may be elected
> twice after that for a total of five years, whereas
> those who get two
> years now can only do only one additional term for a
> total of four
> years (absent special circumstances we discussed with
> Amr earlier,
> which could allow an extra term in either case).
>
> I don’t believe this is correct. Only those
> selected/appointed to fill a vacancy fit the scenario
> you’re describing here, Tapani. So, for example, Juan was
> appointed to fill a vacancy on Council. The time he served
> does not count toward his two consecutive terms limit, and
> he may run for a full Council term now (or a one-year term
> depending on the number of votes he gets), and if elected,
> may run for a second full term in two years time.
>
> Whoever gets elected to fill the leftover 1-year period
> has this 1-year term count towards the two consecutive
> term limit, so will have a maximum possibility of three
> consecutive years on Council, instead of four (not five
> instead of four).
>
> The relevant language in the Bylaws says:
>
> /"Except in a "special circumstance," such as, but not
> limited to, meeting geographic or other diversity
> requirements defined in the Stakeholder Group charters,
> where no alternative representative is available to serve,
> no Council member may be selected to serve more than two
> consecutive terms, in such a special circumstance a
> Council member may serve one additional term. *_For these
> purposes, a person selected to fill a vacancy in a term
> shall not be deemed to have served that term._* A former
> Council member who has served two consecutive terms must
> remain out of office for one full term prior to serving
> any subsequent term as Council member. A "special
> circumstance" is defined in the //GNSO// Operating
> Procedures."/ [emphasis added]
>
> An elected Councilor is not filling a vacant seat. The
> seat is his or hers once elected. Vacant seats are filled
> by selection/appointment, not by election. A “vacancy” on
> the GNSO Council is defined in Article 11.3(c) of the
> ICANN Bylaws.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
> --
>
> Best regards.
>
> Liz.
>
>
> PGP ID: 0x1F3488BF
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20200602/c227d45d/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list