NCSG Election Clarifications

Tue Jun 2 09:42:06 EEST 2020

Who Said What : 

To continue on this, It clearly means “We don’t care for Democracy” = In technical Words - Whoever pointed out that the role is Not Elected but Selected / Nominated  - Elevated - is good.

Take Example from the US Presidential forms. The Next in line is accordance to the Role they plat in the Manage of the Country - So does anywhere else. In all the forums - Either small or Big. 

To justify all the money extended, reports submitted etc. There is No Archive of A Report being Submitted by ANY EC or Former Chair or Councilor as to work delivered over the last few years. In fact, it should be right to say from the inception. We don’t see a time line or a collection of documents, works done - Yes there are “LIST ARCHIVES” but what is to be drawn on that ? Whenever, a office bearer debits office, a report should be submitted, a Traveller travels on Forum Expense either in part or Full, there should be a sharing of knowledge, Because in the GNSO community login - Confluence, there isn’t anything or there isn’t Much. What does that mean ? 

The Constitution :  

There are over 300 members (and Several More) Only 4 People is to be constituted ? And only 4-6-8 people decide how the functioning will be is it ? Thats governance ? WoW. 

The Bylaws cannot be constant - they have to evolve. For anything the group does, there should be a consensus building. Not a DikTat. 

Adaptation & Purpose : 

This discussion has become who says what - Who is right and who is wrong - who is supported by whom - but no body want to talk from a perspective of the community. Why ? What the rush for the Positions and to maintain the Positions. - Why can there be rotation ? If we have grown this big in Some - why cant there be rotation of teams - Initially when the Bylaws were made - there were not many number of people. Now there are. The Charter’s need / requirement and adoptions needs have evolved and changed and thus it should be adapted too. 

-VA
Twitter : @TheVaibhavAg
Facebook : @Vaibhav.tiger
Linkedin : linkedin.com/in/vaibhavbb <http://linkedin.com/in/vaibhavbb>

—————————————————————

> On Jun 2, 2020, at 7:50 PM, Stephanie E Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA> wrote:
> 
> 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> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <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/20200602/8a3e2590/attachment.htm>