[NCSG-PC] URGENT: Vote in the ICANN Board Seat #14 Election

[Ayden Férdeline]

For what it is worth, and I realise this is not much, I do not think the process followed was sufficient and for that reason I do not accept as legitimate the outcome. A vote that was open for only a few hours (three hours, I am told - though nothing is public so I cannot verify that) and not advertised in advance is no vote at all. This is not a reflection on Matthew or Markus as candidates; it is only my feeling that the process followed was incredibly unsatisfactory, un-transparent, and rushed in order to meet an arbitrary deadline.

I don't think it is acceptable to simply say, we need to have a discussion about what should be done in the future. What happened this week is not okay, and I think it reflects very poorly on the NCSG that we would agree to this sham process put forward by the CSG at the last minute. I know that not everyone will agree with my characterisation of the process, but it certainly looks to me like the only reason why our Councillors were allowed to exercise their right to vote was because their voting posed no existential threat to the desired outcome.

Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: Vote in the ICANN Board Seat #14 Election
Local Time: 3 May 2017 9:54 AM
UTC Time: 3 May 2017 08:54
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is, NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>

Dear Ayden, all,

The vote was indeed rushed, but under the circumstances
it was nonetheless felt to be least bad option.

Felt by whom, I guess you're thinking.

What happened is that Rob Hoggarth sent a message on Monday to the
chairs of all NCPH constituencies and SGs (Rafik was not included, but
I Cc:'d him immediately - unfortunately though he was asleep at the
time) reminding us of the deadline.

CSG (which until now had been arguing for election by acclamation)
said that if we really need an election, let's have one now with a
short voting period, noting that this has been discussed long enough
that everybody should be ready to vote. Farzaneh concurred and,
recalling Rafik had earlier suggested we could make do with a shorter
than normal voting period, I agreed as well. Nobody disagreed. The
voting period was set as long as possible (given technical limitations
of the voting software) to ensure results before the deadline. Special
efforts were made to reach all councillors, and all but one eventually
voted.

Yes, it was a rushed process. We did not do exactly well. We had
several months to work out the process, but failed to come up with one
until the deadline forced our hand. And yes, we could have missed the
deadline, but what we did still satisfied our main demands: we had a
real vote rather than acclamation, NCA was included as we wanted &c.

True, we could have just missed the deadline - it was really not as
hard as Rob's message made it sound - and kept on trying to come up
with a prettier procedure. And yes, it would've been good to have
everything discussed at length and agreed upon on the list.

But sometimes the better is the enemy of the good. And this had been
discussed at length already, and time was running out.

The obvious procedural issue here is that the process belongs to NCPH,
and the election is up to NCPH councillors, but NCPH doesn't have any
well-defined mechanism or procedures for deciding anything (apart
from the gnso vice-chair election procedure we agreed on last year).

And that's what we should fix. Should have fixed long ago, to avoid
this mess. For now, I can't blame Rob for thinking that the closest
thing to NCPH decision making body seems to be the collection of its
chairs, and that's who made this decision.

For my part, I took part in and supported that decision and stand by
it, and I suggest we accept the outcome of the vote, although of
course anyone is free to appeal against it, too.

But I would welcome discussion about the process, what should have
been done and how, and more importantly what should be done in the
future.

--
Tapani Tarvainen

On May 02 17:00, Ayden Férdeline (icann at ferdeline.com) wrote:

> (Just to be clear, this message is not directed at Maryam.)
>
> This is the first that I have heard that voting was actually underway for the 14th Board seat. Perhaps I missed an email, but I did not realise a timeline for this had been agreed. And I think it is not acceptable that this vote is being rushed through, as appears to be the case.
>
> Ayden
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [NCSG-PC] URGENT: Vote in the ICANN Board Seat #14 Election
> Local Time: 2 May 2017 9:20 PM
> UTC Time: 2 May 2017 20:20
> From: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org
> To: NCSG PC <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Dear NCSG Councilors,
>
> Voting for the ICANN Board Seat #14 Election, closes today at 2359 UTC.
>
> If you haven’t voted, please cast your vote.
>
> You should have received a ballot. If you have not received a ballot, please contact me ASAP.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> --
>
> Maryam Bakoshi
>
> Secretariat Support – NCSG/NCUC/NPOC
>
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> S: maryam.bakoshi.icann
>
> T: +44 7737698036

> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
_______________________________________________
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-pc/attachments/20170503/99e5c8af/attachment.htm>