> I am of the view that, the elections need to proceed to conclusion.

I am of the same opinion.

Hiro

On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 13:15:37 +0300
abdalla--- via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Katrina,
>
> I have read Stephens letter, and your detailed response to it. I am convinced that the Election Manager did the best she could do, in the current circumstances.
>
> I am of the view that, the elections need to proceed to conclusion.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> ABDALLA OMARI
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2020-01-17 19:52, Katrina Sataki wrote:
> > Dear Stephen, All,
> > > Thank you, Stephen, for sharing your concerns. Before going into
> > substance, I wish I had a possibility to see the list of people (email
> > addresses) that received your letter. I also do not understand why you
> > did not use the regular ccNSO Council mailing list.
> > > I am not sure if all Councillors understood what this is all about (I
> > am not entirely sure I understand all the concerns myself). Therefore,
> > I will start by listing the facts, which unfortunately were missing in
> > Stephen’s email:
> > > 1)            The ccNSO Council has approved the timeline for the
> > Nomination process to fill ICANN Board seat 11. Part of the timeline
> > is the voting process that was scheduled from 14 January until 31
> > January;
> > > 2)            We have appointed Nomination Manager who oversees the
> > entire process;
> > > 3)            The Nomination Manager sent ballots to ccNSO members on
> > 13 January. Voting started (votes were accepted) on 14 January at
> > 00:01 UTC;
> > > 4)            On 14 January, one of the members notified the
> > Nomination Manager about an issue in the voting system (due to a
> > mistake in semantics, it was not possible to vote for one of the
> > candidates);
> > > 5)            The Nomination Manager immediately stopped the voting
> > process, i.e. closed the voting using previously distributed ballots
> > (hereinafter, Faulty Ballots);
> > > 6)            Immediately after that, at 08:19 UTC, the Nomination
> > Manager informed the community, including the ccNSO Council, via
> > email, about the closure of elections. In the same email, the
> > Nomination Manager said that the ballot would be re-sent and voting
> > would re-start on 15 January at 00:01 UTC, i.e. the next day. In
> > addition, the Nomination Manager informed the Council about the
> > concern of one of the members and explained that votes cast using
> > Faulty Ballots would not be taken into consideration.
> > > 7)            The new ballots were distributed on 14 January and
> > voting re-started on 15 January (hereinafter, Renewed Ballot).
> > > 8)            Additional fact: before the closure, 3 members had cast
> > their votes using the Faulty Ballot. These three votes will definitely
> > NOT be added to the final result of the vote using Renewed Ballot.
> > > Now, about Stephen’s questions and concerns.
> > > Stephen’s question: “What exactly was the error that caused the
> > election to be voided, and why was Council not informed fully about
> > this when it happened? Remedial action is the responsibility of
> > Council”
> > > Response: The Nomination Manager did inform the Council (see Fact 6).
> > With respect to the question of what happened: as you all know, we use
> > ICANN’s system for voting (hereinafter, Tally). Tally requires to
> > create a general label and then add this label between square brackets
> > next to each voting option. It is a pure text only field. The
> > Nomination Manager added a vertical bar instead of a closing bracket
> > for one of the candidate’s label. The system did not notify about
> > any issue, and optically the Nomination Manager did not notice the
> > mistake, i.e. that there was something wrong. The system accepted the
> > entry without a closing bracket (which, I firmly believe, it should
> > never allow!). Only when one of the members informed the Nomination
> > Manager about the issue (see Fact 4), the mistake was noticed.
> > > Is remedial action the responsibility of the Council? I think the
> > response is way more complicated than a simple “yes” or “no”.
> > Let’s not expand on a theoretical debate but look at the specific
> > case: the Faulty Ballot did not allow members to vote for one of the
> > candidates. The Nomination Manager had two options:
> > > -              Option 1: ask and wait for Council guidance or
> > > -              Option 2: stop the voting immediately.
> > > The Nomination Manager chose Option 2. Looking at the facts, it was
> > the ONLY RIGHT action and I thank the Nomination Manager for taking
> > this decision.
> > > Can you name one single reason why we, the Councillors, would go for
> > Option 1 knowing that members cannot cast votes for one of the
> > candidates? Can you name one single reason why not to stop the vote
> > using Faulty Ballot immediately but wait for response from the Council
> > while voting is open? I honestly cannot. The voting had to be stopped
> > and stopped immediately.
> > > Stephen’s question: “The election manager then took a decision to
> > start a new vote a day later, but that is not the vote starting date
> > that the Council agreed to in our Resolution. There is no provision in
> > any Ryle of the ccNSO or any Bylaw authorising such a situation.”
> > > Response: As I explained earlier, I believe that the Nomination
> > Manager did the only right thing by stopping the voting. The question
> > is whether the Nomination Manager had the right to decide to resume
> > the voting next day.
> > > Guideline: ccNSO Nominations process ICANN Board seats 11 and 12
> > (hereinafter, Guideline) Article 3.3. states: “The Nomination
> > Manager is responsible for managing the timeline and procedures,
> > including the voting if necessary.” In my view, this authorises the
> > Nomination Manager to make certain decisions, including taking this
> > particular decision as the overall timeline for casting a vote is
> > still within the boundaries defined in the Guideline Section 3.7:
> > “The election voting period will be at a minimum for two weeks, but
> > no longer than three (3) weeks.”
> > > So, for me, the question of whether re-starting of the voting was the
> > right decision, is the question of proportionality. Should the
> > Nomination Manager ask for input from the Council and risk not meeting
> > the deadline of 22 April, or shorten the voting period by one (!!!)
> > day? As there were only 3 votes cast (Fact 8 above), I would say that
> > it was a proportional decision to re-start the voting only one day
> > later.
> > > Stephen’s question: “Initiation of a second round of voting by
> > staff action outside of the decided timeline that was agreed by
> > Council Resolution. (Moreover this was done without any notification
> > to or agreement from Council)”
> > > Response: it is not a second round of voting. It is the same round of
> > voting re-started a day later.
> > > As clearly stated in Fact 6 above, the Nomination Manager did inform
> > the Council and also the members. Yes, the reason for this action was
> > not clearly explained in the email itself. However, as stated in the
> > email to Eberhard Lisse on 14 January, the incident and queries will
> > be included in the Nomination Report (as will be other concerns).
> > > Stephen’s question: “Why are the partial votes cast for individual
> > candidates during the first voting attempt still available for all to
> > see? (This last is really troubling to me and seems to be a breach of
> > the fundamental principle of ballot secrecy while an election is in
> > progress)
> > > Response: As you may remember, this was something I raised when the
> > results of the ccNSO members vote two years ago (the last Board Seat
> > 12 Nomination Process) were announced on Facebook before they were
> > publicly announced by the Nomination Manager and before the Council
> > nominated the person. As we were explained, that is the way Tally is
> > built ? if you know where to look, you can see the results of each
> > vote, faulty or not. It is the way the system is built in order to
> > ensure transparency. All closed voting (Faulty Ballot is a closed
> > voting too) can be seen. Results will remain publically viewable until
> > the election is archived (after being archived the data can still be
> > retrieved if necessary, but won't be shown by default). We can neither
> > rebuild Tally, nor ask/wait for ICANN to do it. That is a part of
> > transparency, and, based on previous experience, should not come as a
> > surprise.
> > > “The fundamental principle of ballot secrecy” means that nobody
> > knows which ccTLD voted for which candidate, not that nobody knows how
> > many people voted for which candidate. What is seen is this:
> > > ---
> > > Board11:
> > >  1:  1 vote     [] Calvin Browne
> > >  2:  2 votes    [] Nigel Phair
> > >                 [Board11| Patricio Poblete
> > >  3:  0 votes    [] None of the above
> > > ---
> > > I am not able to tell who voted for whom. Therefore, personally, I
> > cannot see where there is a breach of ballot secrecy.
> > > Stephen’s question: “One question, in particular, needs to be
> > answered: What authority exists for Staff/Secretariat to unilaterally
> > decide an alternative timetable and to shorten the election by one
> > day, without informing, consulting Council or obtaining our
> > consent?”
> > > Response: As I explained above, I believe it was the right and timely
> > decision. Speaking about Staff/Secretariat authority in the context of
> > Council or Board elections (not about this issue in general), I think
> > we need to answer the fundamental question: why do we have Nomination
> > or Election Manager in the first place? Maybe the Council can manage
> > the process? Guideline Article 3.3 says: “The Nomination Manager
> > must be a person who cannot propose a candidate, second or vote, and
> > who has no direct connection with a ccTLD manager or other potential
> > conflict of interest.” I think it makes perfect sense ? Nomination
> > Manager oversees the process and has no interest in the outcome
> > whatsoever. For the purpose of simplicity, we usually appoint a member
> > of the ccNSO Secretariat. Should this practice be changed? I think it
> > works perfectly well as this case has proven. The decision was
> > impartial, taken timely and addressed proportionally (of course, there
> > is always room for improvement).
> > > Finally, based on the arguments above, I believe that the
> > authorisation from the Council was not needed. I would like to point
> > out that the Council was informed as soon as possible on 14 January,
> > including about the course of action and, therefore, see no reason to
> > interfere in the process at this stage. Once the Nomination Manger has
> > submitted the Nomination Report, we should discuss the incidents as
> > part of our voting on the candidate in accordance with section 10.3
> > (i) of the ICANN Bylaws and section 4 of the Guideline.
> > > If any of the Councillors believe that regardless of the facts and
> > arguments above, the Council must stop the voting, revise the timeline
> > and start a new vote, please let other Councillors know your arguments
> > as soon as possible (members cast their votes as we “speak”).
> > > And one final request - please do not put your concerns/arguments in
> > .pdf files. It makes answering unnecessary longer as I have to re-type
> > the questions. Normal e-mails will suffice. Thank you for
> > understanding!
> > > Kind regards,
> > > ]{atrina
> > > FROM: Stephen Deerhake @ ASNIC [mailto:sdeerhake@nic.as]
> > SENT: Friday, January 17, 2020 4:14 AM
> > SUBJECT: Please see the attached letter
> > > Greetings fellow Council members.
> > > A belated Happy New Year to you all.
> > > Please review the attached correspondence concerning the membership
> > election for Board seat 11.
> > > Best Regards,
> > > /Stephen
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ccnso-council mailing list
> > Ccnso-council@icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
> > _______________________________________________
> > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of
> > your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list
> > accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy
> > (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of
> > Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman
> > link above to change your membership status or configuration,
> > including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling
> > delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
> _______________________________________________
> Ccnso-council mailing list
> Ccnso-council@icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>


_______________________________________________
Ccnso-council mailing list
Ccnso-council@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.