[NCUC-DISCUSS] [NCUC-EC] NCUC EC Elections - Voting Starts tomorrow 23 Nov 2015
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Wed Nov 25 18:40:27 CET 2015
+1
Kathy
On 11/25/2015 12:32 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> OK, sorry for the confusion. I agree that it probably won’t matter
> much and I agree that the priority is to get the election underway and
> completed on schedule. So whatever path gets that done, let’s do.
>
> --MM
>
> *From:*NCUC-EC [mailto:ncuc-ec-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] *On Behalf Of
> *William Drake
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 25, 2015 4:11 AM
> *To:* William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> *Cc:* Exec. Comm <ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>; NCUC-discuss
> <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>; Tapani Tarvainen
> <tapani.tarvainen at effi.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [NCUC-EC] [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC EC Elections - Voting
> Starts tomorrow 23 Nov 2015
>
> Good morning
>
> So here’s where it seems we are.
>
> 1. Since at least 2012 (I don’t have saved mail about 2011), prior to
> my being chair, the ballot sent out in each NCUC election have
> included text saying we will use the NCSG Charter’s system of vote
> weighting. I suppose the rationales were that the Charter was written
> a couple years after the Bylaws (basically by the same people if
> memory serves) and hence could be viewed as the more current thinking;
> NCUC is a part of NCSG and should conform with its procedures where
> possible; the Bylaws have a number of provisions that never seemed to
> correspond to reality (like membership fees) and others that were
> rendered inoperable by the formation of NCSG (like having a Policy
> Committee and electing NCUC Councilors), so people involved in the
> ‘inner circles’ of constituency tended to say let’s follow the parts
> that still make sense and revise the Bylaws later (which I could never
> get help with); and it would be sort of unusual to tell large member
> organizations that they get 4 votes in the one election but only 2 in
> the other. So I suggested ok let’s continue with the practice.
>
> 2. Nobody on or off the EC ever said there was a problem with doing
> this. That includes the less than handful of people who are now
> saying there is a problem with doing this. And again, I emphasize,
> this language has been included in the text of every ballot people
> have used to vote ever since. It didn’t just pop out of nowhere like
> magic. I’m sorry if someone never thought about it before, but it
> would seem a strange procedure to turn on a dime now and take votes
> away from certain members because they have. We shouldn’t bounce back
> and forth based on a few people complaining no matter how disputatious
> the dialogue is, that’s not a professional process to follow in a
> network of 450+ members, many of whom are new and may find it
> discouraging. If we were to make a change now, one would think it
> should at least be based on a vote of the current EC. But the only EC
> members to weigh in have been Milton (the nonvoting Treasurer) and I,
> and we don’t agree. This doesn’t seem sufficient grounds for a change
> of course.
>
> 3. There’s no reason to believe that following the Charter system
> would impact the election outcome in one way rather than another. On
> the ballot list Maryam sent me, there are 22 organizations that would
> have 4 votes rather than 2 under the Charter model. There’s no way to
> know whether they will all vote, or if they do how those 44 ‘extra’
> votes would be allocated with respect to the 3 of 6 EC slots that are
> contested. Same for all the previous years.
>
> 4. Meanwhile we are losing precious days in the election cycle while
> people argue the point, which could negatively impact turn-out. We
> could let things drift for a few more days and see if more people
> weigh in but I strongly suspect this would not produce a clear
> consensus in either direction, and inevitably someone could be unhappy
> with either solution.
>
> We need to get the new EC in place to make appointments for 2016,
> prepare for the February Noncontracted Parties House meeting, and on
> and on. So I would strongly suggest we just proceed on the same basis
> as previous years and if for next year some people want to change the
> voting weighting let’s have a thorough discussion of the options
> rather than a 12th hour debate involving a handful of people.
>
> FWIW with respect to the revision, I sent the Bylaws Team list a set
> of suggestions in August
> http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/bylaws/2015-August/000060.html that
> included addressing different weightings in the two models. Nobody
> has responded to this but I would think that is the appropriate
> setting in which to take up the matter.
>
> Bill
>
> On Nov 24, 2015, at 3:55 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch
> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> On Nov 24, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Tapani Tarvainen
> <tapani.tarvainen at effi.org <mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Without digging into email archives, my recollection is that
> in 2013 I
> first made the voter list using 2-1-1 weights as per our
> bylaws, but
> you decided to use 4-2-1 instead on grounds of consistency
> with NCSG
> and precedent (apparently it had been done that way previously),
>
> Right. And nobody argued against it then or at any time since
> when the same thing’s been recurrently stated, which makes this
> little episode a bit unhelpful. We should not be inconsistent
> with the NCSG charter, and one of the tasks for the Bylaws Team in
> revising will be to make sure we bring our procedures into
> alignment with it. Until that is done we try to comform where we
> can.
>
> So, history and consistency with NCSG favours 4-2-1, bylaws
> say 2-1-1.
>
> The bylaws also say that
>
> "The Chair shall also: [...] Establish ballots for voting, for
> review
> by the EC"
>
> and
>
> "The Executive Committee shall have the following duties: [...]
> Approve all ballots for online elections"
>
> So, over to you and NCUC EC.
>
> Nobody on the EC has opposed the practice previously and I’m not
> seeing anyone reversing course now. If no objections are received
> by tomorrow morning CET I suggest we just get on with it, we’re
> already losing two days and Glen is waiting to send the ballots.
> We will have a shortened election period this time so hopefully
> everyone will respond promptly when ballots are sent. *Please do
> check your spam folders to make sure that mail from
> **tally at icann.org <mailto:tally at icann.org> does not get stuck.*
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill
>
> *********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
> ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org/>
> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
> wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
> /Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap /http://goo.gl/sRR01q
> *********************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing list
> NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:NCUC-EC at lists.ncuc.org>
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-ec
>
> *********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
> ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>
> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
> wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> /Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap /http://goo.gl/sRR01q
> *********************************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20151125/7cbd8298/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list