[NCSG-PC] [NCSG-EC] Board Seat no.14/ Procedure Proposal
David Cake
dave at davecake.net
Thu Feb 22 06:24:16 EET 2018
Yes. We need to find consensus in the end, I think it is useful to make that obvious rather than go through a few rounds of voting just to make it clear that a non-consensus candidate does not have the necessary numbers.
I think it is absolutely in NCSGs strategic interest to block vote when CSG block votes, to make any process that attempts to bypass seeking consensus or negotiating with NCSG as a whole fail.
David
> On 17 Feb 2018, at 12:18 am, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote:
>
> (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 <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>
>>> <mailto: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> <mailto: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> <mailto: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>
>>> <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> <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180222/b78ab10e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180222/b78ab10e/attachment.sig>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list