[NCUC-EC] Conduct of the NCUC Election

[Edward Morris]

Hi Bill,

Thanks for doing all of this.




>
> 3.  That all members are potentially eligible of course poses some risk in
> that folks who are really not following or responding to NCUC mail probably
> won't vote, resulting in a lower than one would like turnout.  Last year it
> appears that just 140 votes were cast
> http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2012-December/012893.htmlout of what was probably what, @ 250 at that point?  Luckily (at least for
> now), our bylaws don't appear to specify a threshold needed to be quorate;
> it's just the person with the most votes wins, and you may recall Norbert
> beat Mary for the Asian seat just 66 to 65.  That said, we have always done
> a lot of get out the vote pestering, and should do so again.  *General
> messages to the whole list will be sent with reminders, but it would also
> make sense to divide up the members list and have each EC member send
> personal bilateral messages to like 50 voters.*  Yes it will take a
> couple hours, but our experience has often been that bilateral messages to
> Dear Bob rather than Dear Member are more effective in spurring people to
> act.  This will need to be done during the election period itself.
>


Should we concerned about the propriety of any EC member on the ballot
contacting folks individually as an EC member asking them to vote? Does
this give the EC member an advantage in a contested election?

I don't have a firm opinion on the matter but would be interested in
knowing what has been done in the past.





>
> 5.  Again, in light of staff availability and meeting timings etc, I
> propose we do
>


In terms of the dates, I reiterate my opposition to this schedule. I feel
the current EC should work without the distraction of an election through
to CD. This is the functional equivalent of last years election timetable
as opposed to the chronological equivalent suggested by Bill. I don't
believe ICANN would be an insurmountable obstacle to a later election and,
in fact, I'm not sure I want to cede them that type of control.

That said, although Tapani has indicated a preference for an election
calendar more in line with my proposal, none of the other EC reps have been
active in this discussion. I'd suggest giving the other EC reps 24 hours to
state a preference and if none is received contrary to Bill's proposal then
we need to move on with his suggestion. My position has not changed but
people have had sufficient time to join the conversation and we can't stay
an election waiting for folks to notice and join in. The election does need
to happen sometime.




>
> October 21-November 7: Nominations submitted to ncuc-discuss (2 1/2 weeks,
> negates the IGF distraction)
> November 8-21: Nominees submit statements (BA attendees would have a week
> prior, and can advance plan, nominations having gone on for weeks before)
> November 22- December 5: Election period
> December 6: Results announced
>
> Since the 21st is little more than two weeks away, I'd like to announce
> this sooner than later on ncuc-discuss.
>
>
> If no other EC member has indicated a preference for a different timetable
within 24 hours we should notify folks as soon as possible as to the
election details as proposed by Bill..


Kind Regards,

Ed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/attachments/20131006/9396b7ba/attachment.html>