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

avri doria avri at apc.org
Fri Feb 16 18:18:37 EET 2018 

(observer)

Hi,

Re finding consensus on a candidate: Isn't this what has has happened
every time after going through a long voting process and failing. Seems
reasonable to just get this step out of the way as the next step after
collecting names, reading statements and doing interviews. And it is
less divisive then candidates getting a majority but never the
supermajority (8) required.

Since they most always vote in a block, an NCSG candidate cannot win
unless they agree in the first place.  All NCSG voters can do, assuming
NCSG sticks with non block voting is to decide to accept their candidate
or not.  And if NCSG votes in  block, it insures a deadlock. It has
always come down to negotiation among the leadership, so it might make
sense to just formalize that step as an early step.

avri


On 16-Feb-18 00:36, David Cake 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
> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>         https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>>         <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto: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

More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list