From mllemineur Sat Oct 12 20:05:13 2013 From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 11:05:13 -0600 Subject: [EC-NCSG] Concerns about the voting process Message-ID: Dear Robin, GNSO Secretariat staff and NCSG colleagues, I am writing this email to express our concerns about the voting process since as NPOC Executive Committee, we have noticed "behaviours" of the system that might provoke a certain level of confusion in some NCSG voting members. Our concern is that as a result, this might deter some members from voting, which of course would be counterproductive. The specific features that we have identified as problematic are the following: 1/ As most of us are aware of, in some cases it has been necessary to resend several times the ballots and we finally received it. Our understanding, based on the explanations we have already received, is that this happens sometimes with this voting system. Nevertheless, we came to the conclusion that this is not at all convenient and that we should find a way to overcome this problem since this may cause not only some voting members -who are absorbed attending their regular activity, or who simply neglect to oversee these kinds of details- to miss the fact that they have not received the ballot, but also, it may discourage them from actively taking the time to look for the ballot in the spam folder and, if needed, take the time to email you and/or the GNSO secretariat to request the resending of the ballot. Even if it is impossible to measure the impact that this technical problem could have on the voters? behaviours, in our opinion, a "friendly-user" voting system should not impose such a burden on any voters and as such should avoid have some of us going through all these steps since it encompasses the risk that we might end loosing votes. 2/ When the voting members receive the "courtesy email" as indicated below in the snapshot -the reminder that if we have not voted yet, we should do it- the email includes an active link to vote again is needed. If for example, in my case, I had already voted and I receive this reminder email, I was wondering what would prevent me, the receiver, from abusing the system, click once again and vote again? And let?s assume it is possible to do it and I did it, the other question than would be, does the system realise that I am trying to abuse it since I would be voting twice when my organisation has the right to vote only one time for being a small organisation ? Another similar example would be the case of Rudi Vansnick who is the representative of ISOC Belgium, which qualifies as a large organisation (two votes) and who is also an individual member of NCUC (one vote). This means that he has received 3 ballots in total and 6 courtesy emails (since it looks like we each receive double courtesy emails as indicated in item number 3 that follows). Therefore, if he had wanted to abuse the system, it looks like he could have voted nine times instead of three times. Could someone please clarify if our understanding is correct or not? Or is the system able to detect these kind of abuses as we would hope so ? Since of course, we have not tried to abuse the system, we are unable to answer this question. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [image: Inline image 1] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 3/ As illustrated in the above snapshot, all emails received (whether the actual ballot or the courtesy email) mention the following sentence at bottom of the email "The URL below will take you directly to your individual ballot". Once again, this can lead to confusion since in the NCSG we have two categories of voters: individual members and organisational members. A voter who has a dual condition as an individual member and a representative of an organisation, while reading this sentence, might wonder if the received ballot corresponds to his vote as an "individual member". And than he realises that all emails mentioned this sentence. Another issues is that, this particular voter, has no way of differentiating the organisational ballot from the individual ballot since, if we are not mistaken, the text of the ballot is the same for all ballots and as a consequence does not allow to distinguish one category of vote from the other. 4/ The other feature that is really confusing, is that as illustrated in the snapshot below and above in the courtesy email, where it reads "voter: EMAIL ADDRESS...." there is a number indicated. In my case, I received two courtesy emails and one indicated number 1 and the end of my email address and the other number 2. Is this number, the actual number of courtesy email sends in sequence ? In the case of a voting member who is individual and an large organizational representative, like in the case of Rudi Vansnick, this is also confusing since he received a double courtesy email for each ballot i.e. he has received 6 courtesy emails each with either 1 or 2 indicated. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx SAMPLE # 2 [image: Inline image 2] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5/ Finally, we were wondering if we are sure that each organisational members voter has a clear idea that he/she is identified either as a large or as a small organisation in other words, are we certain that each member is aware that if labelled as a large organisation they will have the right to vote twice -and as a consequence should expect to receive two ballots- and if labelled as a small organisation they will be able to vote one time -and should expect to receive on ballot- Most importantly, we should not forget that many voting members are newcomers to NCSG which means that this is the first time they go through this election process. If those of us who have some experience with the tally system are puzzled by the mentioned features, it is highly possible that some new NCSG members got even more confused. And we would want to avoid this and its possible negative impact. In conclusion, in light of all the concerns raised and the questions asked, we would greatly appreciate if on one hand, a clarifying email was send to all NCSG voting members since the voting period closes next Monday 14 October at 24 UTC and if on the other hand, a meeting was scheduled in Buenos Aires with the parties involved - pertinent NCSG-EC members and ICANN GNSO staff- so that we discuss possible ways to improve the system for future elections. Best regards, Marie-laure -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Captura de pantalla 2013-10-12 a la(s) 10.12.47 AM.png Type: image/png Size: 37611 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Captura de pantalla 2013-10-12 a la(s) 9.31.02 AM.png Type: image/png Size: 53432 bytes Desc: not available URL: From robin Sat Oct 12 22:02:16 2013 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 12:02:16 -0700 Subject: [EC-NCSG] Concerns about the voting process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1C79D00E-EE0B-4000-B683-40FAD45DF737@ipjustice.org> Hello Marie-laure, There are some facts to help clarify the issue that ease some of your concerns. However I do agree that we can improvements to the online voting system and should discuss ways to do that in the coming weeks. Each member can only vote once, so when they receive a second ballot after having voting, it is only an opportunity to *change* their vote - not to have an additional new vote. It is how that member has voted as of the time the election ends on the 14th. Each member has a different email address. So ISOC-Belgium has a ballot it has assigned to a particular email address, which goes to Rudi. And Rudi has his individual member vote, which goes to a different email address (not the same email address as ISOC-Belgium). We can only have one member per email address. The info as to whether or not an organization is a small or large organization is included on the Final 2013 Active / Inactive Members List and it is also included on the ballot itself on the Voter line after the member email address is a colon followed by the number of votes assigned to that member. And a member's vote are cumulative for a single candidate and cannot be divided as per the NCSG Charter. So while I agree the online process managed by ICANN can cumbersome and a pain (for me and even more for Glen), I do not feel there is any "abuse" of the system possible given its current workings. We make a number of efforts to make sure every person who want to vote can every opportunity to vote. So let's put this issue on the agenda for the next NCSG EC call and see if we can have a good discussion of how we can work to improve the system. Thanks for raising your concerns so we can discuss them and make some improvements to our system. All best, Robin On Oct 12, 2013, at 10:05 AM, marie-laure Lemineur wrote: > Dear Robin, GNSO Secretariat staff and NCSG colleagues, > > I am writing this email to express our concerns about the voting process since as NPOC Executive Committee, we have noticed "behaviours" of the system that might provoke a certain level of confusion in some NCSG voting members. Our concern is that as a result, this might deter some members from voting, which of course would be counterproductive. The specific features that we have identified as problematic are the following: > > 1/ As most of us are aware of, in some cases it has been necessary to resend several times the ballots and we finally received it. Our understanding, based on the explanations we have already received, is that this happens sometimes with this voting system. Nevertheless, we came to the conclusion that this is not at all convenient and that we should find a way to overcome this problem since this may cause not only some voting members -who are absorbed attending their regular activity, or who simply neglect to oversee these kinds of details- to miss the fact that they have not received the ballot, but also, it may discourage them from actively taking the time to look for the ballot in the spam folder and, if needed, take the time to email you and/or the GNSO secretariat to request the resending of the ballot. > Even if it is impossible to measure the impact that this technical problem could have on the voters? behaviours, in our opinion, a "friendly-user" voting system should not impose such a burden on any voters and as such should avoid have some of us going through all these steps since it encompasses the risk that we might end loosing votes. > > 2/ When the voting members receive the "courtesy email" as indicated below in the snapshot -the reminder that if we have not voted yet, we should do it- the email includes an active link to vote again is needed. If for example, in my case, I had already voted and I receive this reminder email, I was wondering what would prevent me, the receiver, from abusing the system, click once again and vote again? > And let?s assume it is possible to do it and I did it, the other question than would be, does the system realise that I am trying to abuse it since I would be voting twice when my organisation has the right to vote only one time for being a small organisation ? > Another similar example would be the case of Rudi Vansnick who is the representative of ISOC Belgium, which qualifies as a large organisation (two votes) and who is also an individual member of NCUC (one vote). This means that he has received 3 ballots in total and 6 courtesy emails (since it looks like we each receive double courtesy emails as indicated in item number 3 that follows). Therefore, if he had wanted to abuse the system, it looks like he could have voted nine times instead of three times. Could someone please clarify if our understanding is correct or not? Or is the system able to detect these kind of abuses as we would hope so ? Since of course, we have not tried to abuse the system, we are unable to answer this question. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > 3/ As illustrated in the above snapshot, all emails received (whether the actual ballot or the courtesy email) mention the following sentence at bottom of the email "The URL below will take you directly to your individual ballot". Once again, this can lead to confusion since in the NCSG we have two categories of voters: individual members and organisational members. A voter who has a dual condition as an individual member and a representative of an organisation, while reading this sentence, might wonder if the received ballot corresponds to his vote as an "individual member". And than he realises that all emails mentioned this sentence. > Another issues is that, this particular voter, has no way of differentiating the organisational ballot from the individual ballot since, if we are not mistaken, the text of the ballot is the same for all ballots and as a consequence does not allow to distinguish one category of vote from the other. > > 4/ The other feature that is really confusing, is that as illustrated in the snapshot below and above in the courtesy email, where it reads "voter: EMAIL ADDRESS...." there is a number indicated. In my case, I received two courtesy emails and one indicated number 1 and the end of my email address and the other number 2. Is this number, the actual number of courtesy email sends in sequence ? In the case of a voting member who is individual and an large organizational representative, like in the case of Rudi Vansnick, this is also confusing since he received a double courtesy email for each ballot i.e. he has received 6 courtesy emails each with either 1 or 2 indicated. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > SAMPLE # 2 > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > 5/ Finally, we were wondering if we are sure that each organisational members voter has a clear idea that he/she is identified either as a large or as a small organisation in other words, are we certain that each member is aware that if labelled as a large organisation they will have the right to vote twice -and as a consequence should expect to receive two ballots- and if labelled as a small organisation they will be able to vote one time -and should expect to receive on ballot- > > Most importantly, we should not forget that many voting members are newcomers to NCSG which means that this is the first time they go through this election process. If those of us who have some experience with the tally system are puzzled by the mentioned features, it is highly possible that some new NCSG members got even more confused. And we would want to avoid this and its possible negative impact. > > In conclusion, in light of all the concerns raised and the questions asked, we would greatly appreciate if on one hand, a clarifying email was send to all NCSG voting members since the voting period closes next Monday 14 October at 24 UTC and if on the other hand, a meeting was scheduled in Buenos Aires with the parties involved - pertinent NCSG-EC members and ICANN GNSO staff- so that we discuss possible ways to improve the system for future elections. > > Best regards, > > Marie-laure > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From mueller Tue Oct 15 22:37:55 2013 From: mueller (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 19:37:55 +0000 Subject: [EC-NCSG] Concerns about the voting process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2514F21@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Marie-Laure I had many of the same concerns. I voted immediately and yet continued to receive multiple courtesy reminders. Can we talk to ICANN about this and ensure that the system prevented duplicate voting? ________________________________ From: ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] on behalf of marie-laure Lemineur [mllemineur at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 1:05 PM To: Robin Gross; Excom NPOC; gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org; Glen de Saint G?ry; ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org Subject: [EC-NCSG] Concerns about the voting process Dear Robin, GNSO Secretariat staff and NCSG colleagues, I am writing this email to express our concerns about the voting process since as NPOC Executive Committee, we have noticed "behaviours" of the system that might provoke a certain level of confusion in some NCSG voting members. Our concern is that as a result, this might deter some members from voting, which of course would be counterproductive. The specific features that we have identified as problematic are the following: 1/ As most of us are aware of, in some cases it has been necessary to resend several times the ballots and we finally received it. Our understanding, based on the explanations we have already received, is that this happens sometimes with this voting system. Nevertheless, we came to the conclusion that this is not at all convenient and that we should find a way to overcome this problem since this may cause not only some voting members -who are absorbed attending their regular activity, or who simply neglect to oversee these kinds of details- to miss the fact that they have not received the ballot, but also, it may discourage them from actively taking the time to look for the ballot in the spam folder and, if needed, take the time to email you and/or the GNSO secretariat to request the resending of the ballot. Even if it is impossible to measure the impact that this technical problem could have on the voters? behaviours, in our opinion, a "friendly-user" voting system should not impose such a burden on any voters and as such should avoid have some of us going through all these steps since it encompasses the risk that we might end loosing votes. 2/ When the voting members receive the "courtesy email" as indicated below in the snapshot -the reminder that if we have not voted yet, we should do it- the email includes an active link to vote again is needed. If for example, in my case, I had already voted and I receive this reminder email, I was wondering what would prevent me, the receiver, from abusing the system, click once again and vote again? And let?s assume it is possible to do it and I did it, the other question than would be, does the system realise that I am trying to abuse it since I would be voting twice when my organisation has the right to vote only one time for being a small organisation ? Another similar example would be the case of Rudi Vansnick who is the representative of ISOC Belgium, which qualifies as a large organisation (two votes) and who is also an individual member of NCUC (one vote). This means that he has received 3 ballots in total and 6 courtesy emails (since it looks like we each receive double courtesy emails as indicated in item number 3 that follows). Therefore, if he had wanted to abuse the system, it looks like he could have voted nine times instead of three times. Could someone please clarify if our understanding is correct or not? Or is the system able to detect these kind of abuses as we would hope so ? Since of course, we have not tried to abuse the system, we are unable to answer this question. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [Inline image 1] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 3/ As illustrated in the above snapshot, all emails received (whether the actual ballot or the courtesy email) mention the following sentence at bottom of the email "The URL below will take you directly to your individual ballot". Once again, this can lead to confusion since in the NCSG we have two categories of voters: individual members and organisational members. A voter who has a dual condition as an individual member and a representative of an organisation, while reading this sentence, might wonder if the received ballot corresponds to his vote as an "individual member". And than he realises that all emails mentioned this sentence. Another issues is that, this particular voter, has no way of differentiating the organisational ballot from the individual ballot since, if we are not mistaken, the text of the ballot is the same for all ballots and as a consequence does not allow to distinguish one category of vote from the other. 4/ The other feature that is really confusing, is that as illustrated in the snapshot below and above in the courtesy email, where it reads "voter: EMAIL ADDRESS...." there is a number indicated. In my case, I received two courtesy emails and one indicated number 1 and the end of my email address and the other number 2. Is this number, the actual number of courtesy email sends in sequence ? In the case of a voting member who is individual and an large organizational representative, like in the case of Rudi Vansnick, this is also confusing since he received a double courtesy email for each ballot i.e. he has received 6 courtesy emails each with either 1 or 2 indicated. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx SAMPLE # 2 [Inline image 2] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 5/ Finally, we were wondering if we are sure that each organisational members voter has a clear idea that he/she is identified either as a large or as a small organisation in other words, are we certain that each member is aware that if labelled as a large organisation they will have the right to vote twice -and as a consequence should expect to receive two ballots- and if labelled as a small organisation they will be able to vote one time -and should expect to receive on ballot- Most importantly, we should not forget that many voting members are newcomers to NCSG which means that this is the first time they go through this election process. If those of us who have some experience with the tally system are puzzled by the mentioned features, it is highly possible that some new NCSG members got even more confused. And we would want to avoid this and its possible negative impact. In conclusion, in light of all the concerns raised and the questions asked, we would greatly appreciate if on one hand, a clarifying email was send to all NCSG voting members since the voting period closes next Monday 14 October at 24 UTC and if on the other hand, a meeting was scheduled in Buenos Aires with the parties involved - pertinent NCSG-EC members and ICANN GNSO staff- so that we discuss possible ways to improve the system for future elections. Best regards, Marie-laure -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Captura de pantalla 2013-10-12 a la(s) 10.12.47 AM.png Type: image/png Size: 37611 bytes Desc: Captura de pantalla 2013-10-12 a la(s) 10.12.47 AM.png URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Captura de pantalla 2013-10-12 a la(s) 9.31.02 AM.png Type: image/png Size: 53432 bytes Desc: Captura de pantalla 2013-10-12 a la(s) 9.31.02 AM.png URL: From mllemineur Wed Oct 16 21:30:34 2013 From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:30:34 -0600 Subject: [EC-NCSG] proposal for discussing a review of membership process Message-ID: Dear NCSG colleagues, Some of us are caught in the middle of reviewing pending applications. I just finished it and with Lori, other NCSG members, as well as with applicants, we have been sharing ideas about the membership process. I would like to propose that during the next meeting we put on the agenda, the possibility of reforming the process as it is right now to improve efficiency. I believe that if we all put our minds together we could improve the current process. The following is meant to be a proposal used to start discussing the matter in the EC: 1/*Periodic review*: We would like to propose that instead of waiting for applications to accumulate themselves, we establish a specific time slot when we will systematically review the incoming applications. It could be for example, every last week each month (a monthly review). This is a way of avoiding having many accumulated applications which is very time-consuming and we all would like to avoid (I guess). 2/ *Priority order:* we could review the incoming applications (order of submission of online form) based on a number the system could generate when the NCSG form is sent. This way, we can use this number when we organise the info in the database and decide the order in which we should review the applications.Plus at the end of the year it would give us a clear statistic. 3/*Design of database*: I remember Robin commenting on this aspect and the fact that ICANN staff should help us with this. Well, we completely support this and if we reach an agreement on this, why not start asap asking ICANN for it and putting pressure so that it happens. 4/*Background check/pre-screening*: This is the most time-consuming aspect and what slows us down a lot. It is not fair that as volunteers, we need bear with such a burden. We we could have another mechanism that could alleviate this burden. We could request ICANN staff to do the first round of background check like a pre-screening, based on online info available publicly and the NCSG charter of course. I just did it and I can not see why they could not do it. Than based on the findings, take the decisions if the background check is clear or do ourselves dome additional background check if we feel there is need for it. We could try this way for a while and see how we feel about it. 5/*Access to NCSG application form*: The NCSG application form is sent directly to NCSG as it should be, but not all of us have access to it. I ignore exactly who has and has not. For the sake of transparency, we think that all NCSG-EC members, should have access to the applications and also for efficiency, since some members who review the applications do allude to information that is on the form when others (being able to do this is very useful since it is our primary source of information), we can not do that because we have no idea of what is on the application since we have no access to it. This is technically very easy to fix. Well, that would be it for the moment. Again, this proposal is meant to start putting the issue on the NCSG-EC agenda and take concrete decisions so that we make a more efficient use of our valuable volunteer time and we do not let our applicants wait for months in some cases, which is not good in terms of image and also might discourage some. Best, Marie-laure -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Thu Oct 17 03:57:22 2013 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:57:22 -0700 Subject: [EC-NCSG] Fwd: Reconsideration Request 13-11 - Update on Timing of BGC Consideration References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: reconsideration > Subject: Reconsideration Request 13-11 - Update on Timing of BGC Consideration > Date: October 16, 2013 4:07:16 PM PDT > To: Robin Gross > > As you are aware, ICANN is in receipt of Reconsideration Request 13-11, submitted on 8 September 2013. The Bylaws governing the Reconsideration process state that the Board Governance Committee shall make a final determination or recommendation to the Board with respect to a Reconsideration Request within thirty days following its receipt of the request, unless impractical. (Article IV, Section 2.16.) Under that guidance, the BGC would have had to act by 8 October 2013. Due to the volume of Reconsideration Requests received within recent weeks, the BGC was unable to consider Request 1311 at its meeting scheduled last week. The BGC is in the process of setting a meeting to address the pending Reconsideration Requests, and we anticipate that the BGC will have an opportunity to consider Request 13-11 no later than the end of October, with the possibility that action will be taken before that date. The BGC will provide all required notification to the Board regarding the impracticability of determining this issue within the 30-day timeframe. ICANN will notify you once the BGC has taken and posted its final determination or recommendation, or in the unlikely circumstance that action cannot be taken in the timeframe set forth above. > -- > ICANN > 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 > Los Angeles, California 90094 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From mllemineur Fri Oct 18 21:04:02 2013 From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 12:04:02 -0600 Subject: [EC-NCSG] Concerns about the voting process In-Reply-To: <1C79D00E-EE0B-4000-B683-40FAD45DF737@ipjustice.org> References: <1C79D00E-EE0B-4000-B683-40FAD45DF737@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Dear Robin and Glen, Many thanks for the very useful clarification. It would be indeed very good if we could discuss possible improvements during the next NCSG -EC meeting and also decide if we feel there is also need to seat down face-to-face with Glen (and some else from the GNSO as pertinent), to assess the process and also share the issues we will raise during our next online NCSG meeting. Also, thanks to you and Glen for leading the process. Best, Marie-laure On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > Hello Marie-laure, > > There are some facts to help clarify the issue that ease some of your > concerns. However I do agree that we can improvements to the online voting > system and should discuss ways to do that in the coming weeks. > > Each member can only vote once, so when they receive a second ballot after > having voting, it is only an opportunity to *change* their vote - not to > have an additional new vote. It is how that member has voted as of the > time the election ends on the 14th. > > Each member has a different email address. So ISOC-Belgium has a ballot > it has assigned to a particular email address, which goes to Rudi. And > Rudi has his individual member vote, which goes to a different email > address (not the same email address as ISOC-Belgium). We can only have one > member per email address. > > The info as to whether or not an organization is a small or large > organization is included on the Final 2013 Active / Inactive Members List and > it is also included on the ballot itself on the Voter line after the member > email address is a colon followed by the number of votes assigned to that > member. And a member's vote are cumulative for a single candidate and > cannot be divided as per the NCSG Charter. > > So while I agree the online process managed by ICANN can cumbersome and a > pain (for me and even more for Glen), I do not feel there is any "abuse" of > the system possible given its current workings. We make a number of > efforts to make sure every person who want to vote can every opportunity to > vote. So let's put this issue on the agenda for the next NCSG EC call and > see if we can have a good discussion of how we can work to improve the > system. > > Thanks for raising your concerns so we can discuss them and make some > improvements to our system. > > All best, > Robin > > > On Oct 12, 2013, at 10:05 AM, marie-laure Lemineur wrote: > > Dear Robin, GNSO Secretariat staff and NCSG colleagues, > > I am writing this email to express our concerns about the voting process > since as NPOC Executive Committee, we have noticed "behaviours" of the > system that might provoke a certain level of confusion in some NCSG voting > members. Our concern is that as a result, this might deter some members > from voting, which of course would be counterproductive. The specific > features that we have identified as problematic are the following: > > 1/ As most of us are aware of, in some cases it has been necessary to > resend several times the ballots and we finally received it. Our > understanding, based on the explanations we have already received, is > that this happens sometimes with this voting system. Nevertheless, we came > to the conclusion that this is not at all convenient and that we should > find a way to overcome this problem since this may cause not only some > voting members -who are absorbed attending their regular activity, or who > simply neglect to oversee these kinds of details- to miss the fact that > they have not received the ballot, but also, it may discourage them from > actively taking the time to look for the ballot in the spam folder and, if > needed, take the time to email you and/or the GNSO secretariat to request > the resending of the ballot. > Even if it is impossible to measure the impact that this technical problem > could have on the voters? behaviours, in our opinion, a "friendly-user" > voting system should not impose such a burden on any voters and as such > should avoid have some of us going through all these steps since it > encompasses the risk that we might end loosing votes. > > 2/ When the voting members receive the "courtesy email" as indicated below > in the snapshot -the reminder that if we have not voted yet, we should do > it- the email includes an active link to vote again is needed. If for > example, in my case, I had already voted and I receive this reminder email, > I was wondering what would prevent me, the receiver, from abusing the > system, click once again and vote again? > And let?s assume it is possible to do it and I did it, the other question > than would be, does the system realise that I am trying to abuse it since > I would be voting twice when my organisation has the right to vote only one > time for being a small organisation ? > Another similar example would be the case of Rudi Vansnick who is the > representative of ISOC Belgium, which qualifies as a large organisation > (two votes) and who is also an individual member of NCUC (one vote). This > means that he has received 3 ballots in total and 6 courtesy emails (since > it looks like we each receive double courtesy emails as indicated in item > number 3 that follows). Therefore, if he had wanted to abuse the system, it > looks like he could have voted nine times instead of three times. Could > someone please clarify if our understanding is correct or not? Or is the > system able to detect these kind of abuses as we would hope so ? Since of > course, we have not tried to abuse the system, we are unable to answer this > question. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > 3/ As illustrated in the above snapshot, all emails received (whether the > actual ballot or the courtesy email) mention the following sentence at > bottom of the email "The URL below will take you directly to your > individual ballot". Once again, this can lead to confusion since in the > NCSG we have two categories of voters: individual members and > organisational members. A voter who has a dual condition as an individual > member and a representative of an organisation, while reading this > sentence, might wonder if the received ballot corresponds to his vote as an > "individual member". And than he realises that all emails mentioned this > sentence. > Another issues is that, this particular voter, has no way of > differentiating the organisational ballot from the individual ballot since, > if we are not mistaken, the text of the ballot is the same for all ballots > and as a consequence does not allow to distinguish one category of vote > from the other. > > 4/ The other feature that is really confusing, is that as illustrated in > the snapshot below and above in the courtesy email, where it reads "voter: > EMAIL ADDRESS...." there is a number indicated. In my case, I received two > courtesy emails and one indicated number 1 and the end of my email address > and the other number 2. Is this number, the actual number of courtesy email > sends in sequence ? In the case of a voting member who is individual and > an large organizational representative, like in the case of Rudi Vansnick, > this is also confusing since he received a double courtesy email for each > ballot i.e. he has received 6 courtesy emails each with either 1 or 2 > indicated. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > SAMPLE # 2 > > > xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > 5/ Finally, we were wondering if we are sure that each organisational > members voter has a clear idea that he/she is identified either as a large > or as a small organisation in other words, are we certain that each > member is aware that if labelled as a large organisation they will have the > right to vote twice -and as a consequence should expect to receive two > ballots- and if labelled as a small organisation they will be able to vote > one time -and should expect to receive on ballot- > > Most importantly, we should not forget that many voting members are > newcomers to NCSG which means that this is the first time they go through > this election process. If those of us who have some experience with the > tally system are puzzled by the mentioned features, it is highly possible > that some new NCSG members got even more confused. And we would want to > avoid this and its possible negative impact. > > In conclusion, in light of all the concerns raised and the questions > asked, we would greatly appreciate if on one hand, a clarifying email was > send to all NCSG voting members since the voting period closes next Monday > 14 October at 24 UTC and if on the other hand, a meeting was scheduled in > Buenos Aires with the parties involved - pertinent NCSG-EC members and > ICANN GNSO staff- so that we discuss possible ways to improve the system > for future elections. > > Best regards, > > Marie-laure > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lori.schulman Wed Oct 23 00:46:16 2013 From: lori.schulman (Lori Schulman) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 21:46:16 +0000 Subject: [EC-NCSG] Membership and evaluation process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07F06E6EBD995844BDC9E2F0714E727A52C5CA84@EX2K10MAILBOX2.ascd.org> Hi, All I just want to let you know that I was out of commission last week due to a personal matter and have not completed reviewing the applications process. I will do it this coming weekend. I apologize for the delay but it could not be helped. Lori Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org [Description: cid:image001.png at 01CC81E2.512C46F0] From: ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 5:40 AM To: marie-laure Lemineur Cc: ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] Membership and evaluation process Hi Marie-laure, I think we can figure out in BA, I am still struggling to settle out the travel there not even sure about arrival date. the other opportunity is to meet in Bali. Best, Rafik 2013/9/27 marie-laure Lemineur > Dear Rafik, I was thinking of an informal meeting between you and me (and whoever from the membership committee will be there) in addition to the formal meeting that Robin mentions in the meeting plan. An informal gathering. If you?d like, we could grab a quick lunch on the Sunday or any other day we can coincide and its suits you. best, mll On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: Hi Marie-Laure, thanks for the suggestion, for meeting , we will have one in BA and I think Robin already planned that the schedule. is it what you have in mind? Best, Rafik 2013/9/24 marie-laure Lemineur > Dear Rafik, Milton, Lori and Robin, I wish to apologise on again if my words have offended any of you. I would like to suggest that we speak about these membership issues face to face if this is agreeable to you. We could arrange for an informal meeting or share a coffee if those of you who will be there, are willing to do so. If this is acceptable to you we can agree on where and when exactly. Best, Marie-laure _______________________________________________ EC-NCSG mailing list EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg ?Join us at the ASCD Conference on Educational Leadership, November 1?3, 2013, at The Cosmopolitan? in fabulous Las Vegas, Nev. Learn and network with the highest-performing education leaders and best-selling authors of proven leadership resources. Register now at www.ascd.org/CEL.? This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2196 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: