[NCSG-EC] [NCSG-PC] Board Seat no.14/ Procedure Proposal

Thu Feb 22 14:03:46 EET 2018

>
> If there are two candidates, one for each SG, and CSG votes as a bloc, as
> they almost always do, there is no scenario where the NCSG candidate wins.
> So that seems a fairly terrible idea.

The NCSG acts as a bloc too. I think this is how it really goes at the
moment and will probably do so in the future, too. I think rotating the
NCPH seat between CSG and NCSG would be the only way to really avoid this
conflict. The problem with this particular election is, that it's hard to
reach consensus on one person from "opposite" stakeholder groups and I find
it unnecessarily difficult process, with no elected board member as long as
consensus is not reached.

-Raoul

On 22 February 2018 at 06:29, David Cake <dave at davecake.net> wrote:

> We don’t just need 8+ votes for strategic reasons - it is the rules. A
> first round of voting that will not succeed is best done informally if at
> all, and if CSG is going to bloc vote (as they very likely will in any
> formal vote) it is never in NCSGs interest to allow a free vote.
> If there is a final round with one candidate from each SG, the result will
> be stalemate (if NCSG all votes together) or the NCSG candidate loses (if
> we allow a free vote and there are defections). If there are two
> candidates, one for each SG, and CSG votes as a bloc, as they almost always
> do, there is no scenario where the NCSG candidate wins. So that seems a
> fairly terrible idea.
>
> David
>
>
> On 20 Feb 2018, at 4:17 am, Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ok, I totally agree that we need 8+ votes on the particular candidate to
> avoid NCA having too much power and I did get that from Farzi's
> explanation. Sorry for being late to answer.
> Could we use that 1st round with more candidates for seeking that rough
> consensus before the final round? Make it a more official that way. I think
> it would create more buzz and consensus reaching than without the second
> round.
>
> In the final round there would be only one candidate from each SG. We
> could have just one week between the first and second round.
>
> -Raoul
>
> On 16 February 2018 at 07:36, David Cake <dave at davecake.net> wrote:
>
>> The only problem with the procedure is that it takes the really difficult
>> parts of the process, and turns it into ‘seek consensus’, which practically
>> may need a lot more detail. Though some of that detail may be more useful
>> to do ad hoc depending on number of interested candidates etc, and there
>> probably really is no useful way to make consensus easier to find purely
>> through process, and it’s valuable to make it very clear tha5 consensus is
>> required.
>>
>>  Also, while full consensus is clearly ideal, should probably be ‘rough
>> consensus’, we need a clear 8+ votes not unanimity (we don’t want to allow
>> any single councillor to derail the process). But I thoroughly agree that
>> seeking rough consensus between the SGs before the ballot is the only
>> practical functional process.
>> Running against NOTA serves as a useful check on attempts to game
>> negotiations, and is needed for formality.
>>
>> David
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 13 Feb 2018, at 7:49 am, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Raoul. Your proposal was based on having multiple candidates if
>> I am not mistaken. When we did our research, based on past experience (3
>> elections and some of them reached deadlocks, Rafik can elaborate) having
>> multiple candidates to vote on is not in the interest of NCSG. What worked
>> well for NCSG and CSG  in previous elections is to discuss until they come
>> up with one consensus candidate to vote on.
>>
>> As to NOTA, it has been used at GNSO chair election and during the last
>> Board seat election NCSG discussed using it. it is common practice in GNSO
>> elections.
>> Threshold of 8: 6 NCSG Council members, 6 CSG council members, 1 NCA . 13
>> to vote, the majority is 8, [ it also avoid the risk that NCA plays a
>> tie-breaker here].
>>
>> Based on our research again, it does make sense to have an election with
>> one candidate. We have always insisted on holding elections in the past and
>> it is needed for formality and procedural matter.
>>
>> If the consensus candidate has been found and goes through the election,
>> he or she will most probably beat the NOTA. If not, there certainly is a
>> problem and it makes sense to  re-start the process to solve that between
>> the 2 groups.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>> (this message is also being sent to NCSG-PC, PC can see Raoul's response
>> below.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Raoul Plommer <plommer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm a little disappointed, that neither you or Rafik even commented on
>>> my earlier proposal, which I think is somewhat clearer.
>>>
>>> Questions on your proposal:
>>>
>>> 1) Why is there a NOTA? Has that actually ever made things easier?
>>> 2) Why is there a threshold of 8 votes for winning?
>>> 3) Does a joint NCPH interview mean that candidates and interviewers
>>> will be from both SGs?
>>>
>>> NCSG, CSG and NCA leaders have to agree on one consensus
>>>> candidate to run for the election.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 4) This actually says that consensus would be reached for only candidate
>>> and then it would not make sense to have elections anymore. I think you
>>> meant that both SGs decide on their best candidate but what would then be
>>> the consensus candidate of the NCA?
>>>
>>> I think the worst part of your proposal is, that it will be relatively
>>> hard to secure all of those eight votes and if it doesn't happen, the whole
>>> thing is restarted god knows how many times.
>>>
>>> For those of you that missed it, here's my proposal:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Let's have two rounds, where on the second round we have only the two
>>> candidates that got most votes in the first round. In case the first round
>>> results in a tie of three or more candidates, the SG that has two or more
>>> candidates has to choose one for the second round. Both SGs would have one
>>> candidate each on the second round, despite the results in the first round.*
>>>
>>>
>>> *Having the first round with more than two candidates, means that all
>>> the NCPH councilors get a say on the best candidates, instead of just their
>>> own stakeholder group. This way, we can get the opinion of all the NCPH
>>> councilors on the prospective candidates through votes, instead of trying
>>> to guess which of the SG's candidates would go through better.*
>>> *Also, we could make the vote anonymously, to also avoid peer pressure
>>> from inside the stakeholder group. The amount of candidates for the first
>>> round can not exceed the amount of GNSO councilors in the SG. *
>>>
>>> -Raoul
>>>
>>> On 12 February 2018 at 02:34, farzaneh badii via NCSG-EC <
>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>
>>>> We need to keep the Board seat 14 election procedure simple and based
>>>> on our past experience. Rafik and I came up with this procedure to propose
>>>> to the small group which we decided to convene during the intersessional.
>>>> We want to kick start that group by Wednesday so if you have any comments
>>>> let me know before that. Note that you can still send your comments when we
>>>> have started the group, we can consider them when discussing with the
>>>> drafting team. we will meet in PR to finalize this.
>>>>
>>>> The procedure is attached.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20180222/3352dc06/attachment.htm>