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

Wed Nov 25 19:15:08 CET 2015

Many thanks Bill and hi to everyone.

I think the points made here by Bill is worthy enough for us to move on.

I would like to add may be we start now to set up agenda of expectations
for the incoming EXCO, say in the first three-six months they must
accommodate this kind of issue(s)/subjects in our meeting, so that we don't
end up like this in the next dispensation.

As much as I agree on the need to finetune both NCUC/NCSG guidelines and
bye-law, they must be done at a time good enough for us to make progress
than merely finding loopholes at election time.

I know the issue of 4 vote for large organisation and 2 for others does not
really make sense, its either we use a uniform format for every
organisation or individual resolve to go by 1man/organisation one vote, but
until them, this is election time and let the new or incoming exco add it
in their agenda with special attention of Rafik on this since he is sole
candidate in his position.

As per the link you sent, Uncle Bill, may be it escaped my radar as member
of the bye-lawyers, I hope our coordinator takes note to bring it up as an
agenda as soon as the election is over.

Good luck to us all and those contestants specially.

Remmy Nweke
@ITRealms

____
REMMY NWEKE,  Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor,
DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd [*Multiple-award winning medium*]
(DigitalSENSE Business News
<http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng/businessnews>; ITREALMS
<http://www.itrealms.com.ng>, NaijaAgroNet <http://www.naijaagronet.com.ng>)
Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos
M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms
<http://www.twitter.com/ITRealms>
Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria
<https://www.facebook.com/adecadeofictreportageinnigeria‎>
NDSF 2016
<https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10153112418861429&set=a.119216361428.104226.716351428&type=1>
_________________________________________________________________
*Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments
are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended
only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal
responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended
recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do
not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make
any copies. Violators may face court persecution.

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 10:11 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
wrote:

> 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> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> On Nov 24, 2015, at 9:52 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <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 <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
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> *Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap *http://goo.gl/sRR01q
> *********************************************************
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCUC-EC mailing list
> 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
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   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/d5ebf4b6/attachment-0002.html>