[NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC EC Elections - Voting Starts tomorrow 23 Nov 2015

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

I certainly don’t believe delaying the elections is a constructive idea at this point. Fixing the bylaws is a time consuming activity, and this is not just because of the work and discussions that need to go in to it. There is also a lengthy process involving a membership vote, and coordination with the ICANN Board’s Organisational Effectiveness Committee (OEC). So I have a slight problem with the idea of keeping an EC in place past its time to deal with this. This is especially true when it is the EC that has elected to not work to change these bylaws while it was seated (the reasons being irrelevant to me in the context of this discussion).

There’s a lot of things about the NCUC bylaws that simply don’t work, and are impossible to comply with. This is in no way different. Since Ed brought this up, and a discussion has taken place, then at least we will proceed with a clearer understanding of what the recurring problem is/has been every year.

The current EC will need to make a decision on which method will be used to weigh votes in this election, and I sincerely hope the next EC finally gets around to fixing the bylaws problem. Arun Sukumar has already begun some admirable work on that front, and I look forward to continuing to work with him on this.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Nov 24, 2015, at 3:58 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello James,
> 
> What was used in the past is not the right thing, that is my concern. I have no problem with using the past threshold, I think now that it has been raised makes any future election open to questioning. There is noting currently wrong with the present NCUC bylaw as it concerns the threshold, the NCUC bylaw is supposed to be followed even if part of it is flawed. So I personally don't buy the Idea of ignoring an organization governing document, the best that can be done is to put the election on hold, update the bylaw to reflect the threshold and then that can be applied for the election (if people preferred the NCSG threshold).
> 
> I believe we should forget about the past but think about the future implications when applying things of the past in the present. 
> 
> Regards
> 
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 2:42 PM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
> Personally I feel that given we are currently revising the bylaws recognising their unsuitability at the moment we would be best placed to go with the actual practise exercised during the last number of elections as its the practise that has elected the previous number of candidates to their positions, unless we wish to open up the previous elections for allegations of impropriety we should continue the current practise and wait until we have made a decision in the bylaws subgroup on this matter.
> 
> -jg
> 
> From: Ncuc-discuss <ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday 24 November 2015 at 1:33 p.m.
> To: Tapani Tarvainen <tapani.tarvainen at effi.org>, NCUC-discuss <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC EC Elections - Voting Starts tomorrow 23 Nov 2015
> 
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote:
> Hi Bill,
> Technically changing the weights in the list is trivial (I think
> Maryam could do it in about 15 seconds), if that's what you decide.
> This is not a technical problem but a political decision.
> 
> SO: This is a very useful information. So there is no timing issue in doing the right thing here.
> 
> Regards 
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Nov 23 12:56, William Drake (william.drake at uzh.ch) wrote:
> 
> > Hi Ed
> >
> > > On Nov 23, 2015, at 12:10 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > So rather than the 4-2-1 voting proportions used for NCSG  elections, NCUC elections are run using a 2-1-1 vote weighing system. In practical terms the NCUC Bylaws give more power to individual members, the NCSG Charter to large organisations.
> > >
> > > I do hope the tabulation software will be programmed to accurately reflect the NCUC Bylaws. We have several contested elections with some fine candidates and in fairness to them it would be good to use the vote weighing system contained in our Bylaws and not that of our SG.
> > >
> >
> > This puzzled me so I checked with Glen and Maryam as well as the 2013 and 2014 final vote tallies I have saved on my computer.  As far as we can see, what we’ve done for some years now is follow the NCSG Charter's vote weighting rather than the NCUC Bylaws' weighting, which was defined prior the SG's formation. You were on the NCUC EC when we did this in the 2013 election and I don’t recall it being an issue.  There’s obviously an argument for having harmonization with the later and technically higher level model, no?  Why should we change direction at this point?
> >
> > Unfortunately, Tapani (king of the data base) is off line today, so maybe we’ll hold off a day on sending out ballots until we can hear from him.  I’m about to get off a bouncy train in Zurich where I teach for four hours, and in any event have never touched the data base, so I’d rather make sure that our understanding fits with his.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Bill
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
> Mobile: +2348035233535
> alt email:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> 
> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Seun Ojedeji,
> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
> web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
> Mobile: +2348035233535
> alt email: seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
> 
> Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss