Dear Council I hereby formally object to the proposed resolution on election of a delegate to NomComm, scheduled for tomorrows call. The rules, adopted by Council in 2008, for the election are found at https://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/appointment-nomcom-delegate-05nov08.pd... My objection is for the following reasons: (1) neither of the two candidates appear to have been proposed in accordance with the adopted election rules which require that they each be both proposed and seconded by a ccTLD member. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ As neither candidate appears to validly proposed in accordance with the adopted election rules, I formally request Council to withdraw the proposed resolution from consideration on tmorrow's call ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (2) Council may not decide on the election of a delegate on Thursday's call in any event. The adopted election rules /require/ an email ballot of Councillors. I very much regret that any proposal that Councillors be deprived of the democratic right to a ballot. (3) Finally, I note that the nomination period was abbreviated in breach of election rules - it is required to be 4 weeks. 7 days is too short, but even if it were not, it is not what the election rules say is This is particularly important during the August holiday month. In respect of the timsscale issue, I received a complaint from a potential candidate about the abbreviation of time which brought the above irregularities to my attention. That candidate has informed me that he has formally decided to withdraw from the election for a NomCom delegate, which I find to be a great loss, and I understand he is making his own complaint directly. Since the issue of the call of interest, I had been attempting to resolve the matter diplomatically over the last couple of days. I have proposed to the Chair a way forward that would allow us to conduct the legally required ballot fairly and without undue delay. But I was informed that that the need to abbreviate the required timescale originated in a communication from the NomCom to us sent to us on 4th August requiring a decision on our appointee by tomorrow, in breach of the election rules that the nomination period should be open for 4 weeks until the end of August. (I shall be making my feelings known about this unfortunate situation to the NC Chair and Chair-Elect directly.) Frankly, irrespective of the pressure being apparently placed on us by the NomCom Chair, a delay of two or three weeks in seating our representative is minor compared with the deleterious effect on our SO's reputation in matters of the accountability discussion. And I see no reason in the email we received for abolishing secret ballots or the requirement to be associated with a ccTLD member registry (as proved by requiring proposers and seconders) nor has any been suggested since I raised the issue. Notwithstanding that another body in ICANN should not be in a position to require us to break rules that were formally adopted by the ccNSO in 2008, it is within Council's power, should it wish to revise the rules, in good time each year. But I very seriously object to fundamental changes to our democratic processes being made outside of Council, without informing Council. I do not believe the Chair, or anyone else has the power to make this decisions, and I think Council needs to be very concerned about this happening, not for the first time. I shall be proposing an Amemndment tomorrow.