PROBLEM: VOTE CREDENTIALS: EURALO Secretariat
Dear All, Before I tried to vote for the EURALO Secretariat I made some observations.
From my background I always review and test voting systems. Reviewing and testing the voting system I now have to suspect a problem with the voting procedures and/or system. To explain the problem the following:
The (concept) minutes of the last GA regarding the voting for the secretariat contains: Secret votes: 27 votes in total, proxies included, one missing due to delayed arrival at the meeting. Ms. Yuliya Morenets: 8 votes Ms. Oksana Prykhodko: 11 votes None of the above: 8 votes So voting was possible for Yuliya, Oksana or None. However the Bigpuls voting system said: Please select one of the two candidates below, listed in alphabetical order, for the position of EURALO Secretariat for the term of from the EURALO GA 2013 to the EURALO GA 2015: * Yuliya Morenets * Oksana Prykhodko Select one checkbox Yuliya Morenets Oksana Prykhodko So voting is possible for Yuliya, Oksana but NOT for None. This leads to the conclusion that this election process is inconsistent with the last week election at the GA. To be sure that this option is really really missing (some voting systems are no so well documented) I did a test. I didn't select any checkbook and hit "Submit vote". And indeed, the system responded: Error: check your submission EURALO Secretariat You must select at least one choice in this poll. My first impression is that one voting option ("none") is missing. At least this is confusing and leads to the question why is this implemented this way? Best Regards, Dick Kalkman On 27-6-2013 5:00, At-Large Staff wrote:
Dear Dick,
Please note that the poll for the position of EURALO Secretariat has now opened.
***** Question: Please select one of the two candidates below, listed in alphabetical order, for the position of EURALO Secretariat for the term of from the EURALO GA 2013 to the EURALO GA 2015:
* Yuliya Morenets * Oksana Prykhodko
*****
Please note that the poll will be open from *_24_**-**June**-2013 23:59 UTC* to *_28_**-June-2013 **_23:59_** UTC*.
<DELETED PART>
Important Security Warning: Do not forward this email because it contains an auto-signin link.
<DELETED PART>
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen
ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC
E-mail: staff@atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>
Dear Dick, thanks for your observations and remarks. We have discussed the need for a 2nd voting round and the set-up of the voting tool last Thursday night at our extraordinary Board meeting in Lisbon and afterwards. One of the conclusions was: We offered more - incl. NoA or sort of Abstain - in the first round what broad tight results without clear majorities (or where the most votes (11) was countered by 8 + 8 = 16 what indicates that 11 was not a majority vote out of 27, as prescribed in the Bylaws (art. 11.20). In a 2nd run-off voting round (Stichwahl) you usually reduce options to come up with a clear result on the candidates and not to face a similar dilemma as in the first round. That's why the Bigpulse voting tool was designed like this = to enable a clear voting result. Some people mentioned/argued already, if they still don't want to make a choice between the two candidates, the only option would be to refrain from casting their vote in the 2nd round -- what is considered by a few TMK and has to be taken into account when At-Large Staff will check the number of total voters who casted their vote compared to those who received an invitation plus credentials for the vote. Perhaps this may be an option for you as well? But I still hope that we will have a clear voting result by tomorrow night. Thanks for your understanding and best regards, Wolf Dick Kalkman wrote Fri, 28 Jun 2013 02:09
Dear All,
Before I tried to vote for the EURALO Secretariat I made some observations.
From my background I always review and test voting systems. Reviewing and testing the voting system I now have to suspect a problem with the voting procedures and/or system. To explain the problem the following:
The (concept) minutes of the last GA regarding the voting for the secretariat contains:
Secret votes: 27 votes in total, proxies included, one missing due to delayed arrival at the meeting. Ms. Yuliya Morenets: 8 votes Ms. Oksana Prykhodko: 11 votes None of the above: 8 votes
So voting was possible for Yuliya, Oksana or None.
However the Bigpuls voting system said:
Please select one of the two candidates below, listed in alphabetical order, for the position of EURALO Secretariat for the term of from the EURALO GA 2013 to the EURALO GA 2015: * Yuliya Morenets * Oksana Prykhodko
Select one checkbox
Yuliya Morenets Oksana Prykhodko
So voting is possible for Yuliya, Oksana but NOT for None.
This leads to the conclusion that this election process is inconsistent with the last week election at the GA.
To be sure that this option is really really missing (some voting systems are no so well documented) I did a test. I didn't select any checkbook and hit "Submit vote". And indeed, the system responded:
Error: check your submission EURALO Secretariat You must select at least one choice in this poll.
My first impression is that one voting option ("none") is missing. At least this is confusing and leads to the question why is this implemented this way?
Best Regards,
Dick Kalkman
On 27-6-2013 5:00, At-Large Staff wrote:
Dear Dick,
Please note that the poll for the position of EURALO Secretariat has now opened.
***** Question: Please select one of the two candidates below, listed in alphabetical order, for the position of EURALO Secretariat for the term of from the EURALO GA 2013 to the EURALO GA 2015:
* Yuliya Morenets * Oksana Prykhodko
*****
Please note that the poll will be open from *_24_**-**June**-2013 23:59 UTC* to *_28_**-June-2013 **_23:59_** UTC*.
<DELETED PART>
Important Security Warning: Do not forward this email because it contains an auto-signin link.
<DELETED PART>
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen
ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC
E-mail: staff@atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
Dear Wolf, I can not find this strange decision the (interesting) minutes of the board meeting. The discussion ended with "Wolf Ludwig: Simple repetition of the previous vote, same candidates, no new nominations, same voters." Nothing about new procedures a.s.o. Two additional points: 1. Refraining from casting is not the same as a blank or none vote. 2. My testing of the voting procedures and voting system may not be confused and/or framed with my voting preference. So, the voting problems are not transparently based on bylaws and/or a GA decision and/or a board decision and/or international recognized and accepted voting principles. Yes, you can indeed reduce options to come up with a clear result on the candidates, but that means that you limit the number of candidates. You don't violate international recognized and accepted voting principles! It's an upside world if you adopt voting rights and a voting system to optically compensate for failing bylaws (or failing bylaw interpretations). On this base the voting system and the voting results can not be supported and accepted. For the best of EURALO I prefer a quick, clear and acceptable operational solution by correcting and restarting the bigpulse voting by adding the none option. Just apply the common rule that in the second round the candidate with the most votes wins. Best regards, Dick Kalkman President Internet Society The Netherlands ISOC The Netherlands Chapter E: d.h.kalkman@isoc.nl I: http://isoc.nl A: Prins Willem-Alexanderhof 5 Kamer i4.310 2595 BE Den Haag The Netherlands On 28-6-2013 3:04, Wolf Ludwig wrote:
Dear Dick,
thanks for your observations and remarks. We have discussed the need for a 2nd voting round and the set-up of the voting tool last Thursday night at our extraordinary Board meeting in Lisbon and afterwards. One of the conclusions was:
We offered more - incl. NoA or sort of Abstain - in the first round what broad tight results without clear majorities (or where the most votes (11) was countered by 8 + 8 = 16 what indicates that 11 was not a majority vote out of 27, as prescribed in the Bylaws (art. 11.20).
In a 2nd run-off voting round (Stichwahl) you usually reduce options to come up with a clear result on the candidates and not to face a similar dilemma as in the first round. That's why the Bigpulse voting tool was designed like this = to enable a clear voting result.
Some people mentioned/argued already, if they still don't want to make a choice between the two candidates, the only option would be to refrain from casting their vote in the 2nd round -- what is considered by a few TMK and has to be taken into account when At-Large Staff will check the number of total voters who casted their vote compared to those who received an invitation plus credentials for the vote. Perhaps this may be an option for you as well?
But I still hope that we will have a clear voting result by tomorrow night. Thanks for your understanding and
best regards, Wolf
Dick Kalkman wrote Fri, 28 Jun 2013 02:09
Dear All,
Before I tried to vote for the EURALO Secretariat I made some observations.
From my background I always review and test voting systems. Reviewing and testing the voting system I now have to suspect a problem with the voting procedures and/or system. To explain the problem the following:
The (concept) minutes of the last GA regarding the voting for the secretariat contains:
Secret votes: 27 votes in total, proxies included, one missing due to delayed arrival at the meeting. Ms. Yuliya Morenets: 8 votes Ms. Oksana Prykhodko: 11 votes None of the above: 8 votes
So voting was possible for Yuliya, Oksana or None.
However the Bigpuls voting system said:
Please select one of the two candidates below, listed in alphabetical order, for the position of EURALO Secretariat for the term of from the EURALO GA 2013 to the EURALO GA 2015: * Yuliya Morenets * Oksana Prykhodko
Select one checkbox
Yuliya Morenets Oksana Prykhodko
So voting is possible for Yuliya, Oksana but NOT for None.
This leads to the conclusion that this election process is inconsistent with the last week election at the GA.
To be sure that this option is really really missing (some voting systems are no so well documented) I did a test. I didn't select any checkbook and hit "Submit vote". And indeed, the system responded:
Error: check your submission EURALO Secretariat You must select at least one choice in this poll.
My first impression is that one voting option ("none") is missing. At least this is confusing and leads to the question why is this implemented this way?
Best Regards,
Dick Kalkman
On 27-6-2013 5:00, At-Large Staff wrote:
Dear Dick,
Please note that the poll for the position of EURALO Secretariat has now opened.
***** Question: Please select one of the two candidates below, listed in alphabetical order, for the position of EURALO Secretariat for the term of from the EURALO GA 2013 to the EURALO GA 2015:
* Yuliya Morenets * Oksana Prykhodko
*****
Please note that the poll will be open from *_24_**-**June**-2013 23:59 UTC* to *_28_**-June-2013 **_23:59_** UTC*.
<DELETED PART>
Important Security Warning: Do not forward this email because it contains an auto-signin link.
<DELETED PART>
Regards,
Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen
ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC
E-mail: staff@atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
Dear Dick, thank you for your message. I'll provide my answers in-line: On 28/06/2013 09:46, Dick Kalkman wrote:
Dear Wolf,
I can not find this strange decision the (interesting) minutes of the board meeting. The discussion ended with "Wolf Ludwig: Simple repetition of the previous vote, same candidates, no new nominations, same voters." Nothing about new procedures a.s.o.
I can confirm that when the Board discussed the next steps forward, there was consensus that only two candidates should be on the ballot and that the "none of the above" selection would be removed. Otherwise, the new vote would yield the same problem as the first round of voting.
Yes, you can indeed reduce options to come up with a clear result on the candidates, but that means that you limit the number of candidates. You don't violate international recognized and accepted voting principles! It's an upside world if you adopt voting rights and a voting system to optically compensate for failing bylaws (or failing bylaw interpretations). On this base the voting system and the voting results can not be supported and accepted.
The run-off vote is an “international recognized and accepted voting principle” – see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system
For the best of EURALO I prefer a quick, clear and acceptable operational solution by correcting and restarting the bigpulse voting by adding the none option. Just apply the common rule that in the second round the candidate with the most votes wins.
Without the elimination of one of the options, it is likely that the results will lead again in a deadlock. For those people who do not wish to vote for either candidate, they can decide not to vote. As a result, the results will be decided from the votes cast and there is no problem of "none of the above". It is also worth noting that in the past, the option "none of the above" was never offered. We are therefore entering new territory regarding this -- and the inclusion of "none of the above" is mandated by no bylaw. Quite the contrary, it was a decision of the Board to add it to the ballot. It can therefore be removed by decision of the Board. I hope this helps. Kind regards, Olivier
Dear Olivier, Thank you for your comments. I'll also provide my comments inline: On 28-6-2013 10:48, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Dick,
thank you for your message. I'll provide my answers in-line:
On 28/06/2013 09:46, Dick Kalkman wrote:
Dear Wolf,
I can not find this strange decision the (interesting) minutes of the board meeting. The discussion ended with "Wolf Ludwig: Simple repetition of the previous vote, same candidates, no new nominations, same voters." Nothing about new procedures a.s.o.
I can confirm that when the Board discussed the next steps forward, there was consensus that only two candidates should be on the ballot and that the "none of the above" selection would be removed. Otherwise, the new vote would yield the same problem as the first round of voting.
This is wrong. Yes, it's OK to limit the second round to the two candidates with the most votes. No, it's NOT OK to change the voting system. In a second round it's common practice that the candidate with the most votes wins. In a second round there is no absolute majority vote needed. We are tying to solve a problem that doesn't exists. And worse by violating voting principles.
Yes, you can indeed reduce options to come up with a clear result on the candidates, but that means that you limit the number of candidates. You don't violate international recognized and accepted voting principles! It's an upside world if you adopt voting rights and a voting system to optically compensate for failing bylaws (or failing bylaw interpretations). On this base the voting system and the voting results can not be supported and accepted.
The run-off vote is an “international recognized and accepted voting principle” – see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system
Clear, but it doesn't say that removing the so called "none of the above option" or "blank vote" option is allowed. More deeply this would also partially violate the most basic rule that voting on natural persons is a secret. You are not allowed to control or see what or how somebody vote. Not by looking over her or his shoulder, not by letting a electronic system control this.
For the best of EURALO I prefer a quick, clear and acceptable operational solution by correcting and restarting the bigpulse voting by adding the none option. Just apply the common rule that in the second round the candidate with the most votes wins.
Without the elimination of one of the options, it is likely that the results will lead again in a deadlock.
No, in a second round the candidate with the most votes always wins. Yes, there is a possibility that both candidates get the same number of votes, but that is another problem.
For those people who do not wish to vote for either candidate, they can decide not to vote. As a result, the results will be decided from the votes cast and there is no problem of "none of the above".
No, this is violating the right to vote for none (blank vote) of the candidates.
It is also worth noting that in the past, the option "none of the above" was never offered. We are therefore entering new territory regarding this -- and the inclusion of "none of the above" is mandated by no bylaw. Quite the contrary, it was a decision of the Board to add it to the ballot. It can therefore be removed by decision of the Board.
I doubt if the board is authorized to do so, but anyway it's not in the minutes what saves us from adding this potential additional problem.
I hope this helps.
Kind regards,
Olivier
I think it's better for EURALO to solve this problem internally! Best and most simple solution is: 1. Add the "none of the above" option; 2. Redo the vote. Best Regards, Dick Kalkman
Dear all, The only comment I have to say is that I have been upset to learn (by accident) that the election had been invalidated AFTER the G.A. during another meeting where all ALS representatives were no longer present. So my first thought was "what's the meaning of participating in a G.A. if an official action is invalidated afterwards?" Then it took one week before I finally got the information explaining what happened and how it happened. Now I can understand all arguments and points of view (nobody is actually wrong), but I can only blame such a situation to have occurred in such a way that there was no clear communication about all this. Something like an official email or web page sent to everybody, explaining why the election had been invalidated and explaining the suggested next steps, would have been welcome. Now, the only decent thing to do is to move forward. So, may I humbly suggest, to unlock the situation AND make everybody (or at least the majority) happy, to do a THIRD AND LAST election with the following principles : - let us all agree that the first vote in Lisbon was actually valid BUT the result was not clear enough, according to the bylaws which request an absolute majority (*) - let us all agree that the bylaws request a second vote BUT that this time the simple majority is requested - redesign the electronic vote by adding the option "none of the above" - let us all vote - publish the results - elect the candidate with the majority of votes (whatever the number of blank votes) Do we all admit that the last days suffered from a lack of transparency but that we all wish to overcome it and do something constructive? Thank you and regards to all. (*) If the number of votes for A is greater than half the number of voters, then it is called absolute majority. If the number of votes for A is smaller than half the number of voters AND greater than the number of votes for B, then it is called simple majority. According to the bylaws, if there is no absolute majority during the first vote, we organize a second vote and the candidate with the simple majority wins. Eric Tomson, for ISOC WALLONIA --- -----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dick Kalkman Sent: vendredi 28 juin 2013 11:22 To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: Discussion for At-Large Europe; At-Large Staff Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] PROBLEM: VOTE CREDENTIALS: EURALO Secretariat Dear Olivier, Thank you for your comments. I'll also provide my comments inline: On 28-6-2013 10:48, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Dick,
thank you for your message. I'll provide my answers in-line:
On 28/06/2013 09:46, Dick Kalkman wrote:
Dear Wolf,
I can not find this strange decision the (interesting) minutes of the board meeting. The discussion ended with "Wolf Ludwig: Simple repetition of the previous vote, same candidates, no new nominations, same voters." Nothing about new procedures a.s.o.
I can confirm that when the Board discussed the next steps forward, there was consensus that only two candidates should be on the ballot and that the "none of the above" selection would be removed. Otherwise, the new vote would yield the same problem as the first round of voting.
This is wrong. Yes, it's OK to limit the second round to the two candidates with the most votes. No, it's NOT OK to change the voting system. In a second round it's common practice that the candidate with the most votes wins. In a second round there is no absolute majority vote needed. We are tying to solve a problem that doesn't exists. And worse by violating voting principles.
Yes, you can indeed reduce options to come up with a clear result on the candidates, but that means that you limit the number of candidates. You don't violate international recognized and accepted voting principles! It's an upside world if you adopt voting rights and a voting system to optically compensate for failing bylaws (or failing bylaw interpretations). On this base the voting system and the voting results can not be supported and accepted.
The run-off vote is an "international recognized and accepted voting principle" - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system
Clear, but it doesn't say that removing the so called "none of the above option" or "blank vote" option is allowed. More deeply this would also partially violate the most basic rule that voting on natural persons is a secret. You are not allowed to control or see what or how somebody vote. Not by looking over her or his shoulder, not by letting a electronic system control this.
For the best of EURALO I prefer a quick, clear and acceptable operational solution by correcting and restarting the bigpulse voting by adding the none option. Just apply the common rule that in the second round the candidate with the most votes wins.
Without the elimination of one of the options, it is likely that the results will lead again in a deadlock.
No, in a second round the candidate with the most votes always wins. Yes, there is a possibility that both candidates get the same number of votes, but that is another problem.
For those people who do not wish to vote for either candidate, they can decide not to vote. As a result, the results will be decided from the votes cast and there is no problem of "none of the above".
No, this is violating the right to vote for none (blank vote) of the candidates.
It is also worth noting that in the past, the option "none of the above" was never offered. We are therefore entering new territory regarding this -- and the inclusion of "none of the above" is mandated by no bylaw. Quite the contrary, it was a decision of the Board to add it to the ballot. It can therefore be removed by decision of the Board.
I doubt if the board is authorized to do so, but anyway it's not in the minutes what saves us from adding this potential additional problem.
I hope this helps.
Kind regards,
Olivier
I think it's better for EURALO to solve this problem internally! Best and most simple solution is: 1. Add the "none of the above" option; 2. Redo the vote. Best Regards, Dick Kalkman _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Hi Eric, I understand your point that there was a lot of confusion about this election issue after the Lisbon GA. But as repeatedly explained the last week and starting the day after the GA, we didn’t suggest or request an immediate time-out during the GA (what would have been a best way) because of a) the presence of our VIP guests (Fadi and Nigel) and you don’t deal with Bylaw checks and Internas while such guests are in the room, b) we faced a tight GA time schedule and had an ICANN – EURALO Outreach reception immediately after the GA at 19:30 – and there was NO WAY to skip it! These were the given constraints and circumstances for and during the GA, and therefore the Bylaws check had to be postponed and done afterwards by a Board committee. And therefore we convened an extraordinary Board meeting on spot for Thursday night (as during the day people were busy with the EuroDIG – where Sandra and I still had an org. function). And there was some indicating communication in Lisbon already (see my mailing "Discussions at tonight’s Board meeting and Bylaws" from 21/06/2013 03:38:07 and afterwards like "Proposal to move forward regarding the election of Euralo officers" from 24/06/2013 17:25:24 etc.) For the rest of your suggestions, I personally do not agree that a “3rd voting round” would bring any better result – and simply by experience and practicality that any such step evokes a lot of work and mobilizing the members for another voting round is always a huge challenge. But I leave this up to the Board for further consideration. Thanks for your understanding and regards, Wolf Eric Tomson wrote Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:57:
Dear all,
The only comment I have to say is that I have been upset to learn (by accident) that the election had been invalidated AFTER the G.A. during another meeting where all ALS representatives were no longer present. So my first thought was "what's the meaning of participating in a G.A. if an official action is invalidated afterwards?" Then it took one week before I finally got the information explaining what happened and how it happened. Now I can understand all arguments and points of view (nobody is actually wrong), but I can only blame such a situation to have occurred in such a way that there was no clear communication about all this. Something like an official email or web page sent to everybody, explaining why the election had been invalidated and explaining the suggested next steps, would have been welcome.
Now, the only decent thing to do is to move forward. So, may I humbly suggest, to unlock the situation AND make everybody (or at least the majority) happy, to do a THIRD AND LAST election with the following principles : - let us all agree that the first vote in Lisbon was actually valid BUT the result was not clear enough, according to the bylaws which request an absolute majority (*) - let us all agree that the bylaws request a second vote BUT that this time the simple majority is requested - redesign the electronic vote by adding the option "none of the above" - let us all vote - publish the results - elect the candidate with the majority of votes (whatever the number of blank votes)
Do we all admit that the last days suffered from a lack of transparency but that we all wish to overcome it and do something constructive?
Thank you and regards to all.
(*) If the number of votes for A is greater than half the number of voters, then it is called absolute majority. If the number of votes for A is smaller than half the number of voters AND greater than the number of votes for B, then it is called simple majority. According to the bylaws, if there is no absolute majority during the first vote, we organize a second vote and the candidate with the simple majority wins.
Eric Tomson, for ISOC WALLONIA ---
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dick Kalkman Sent: vendredi 28 juin 2013 11:22 To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: Discussion for At-Large Europe; At-Large Staff Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] PROBLEM: VOTE CREDENTIALS: EURALO Secretariat
Dear Olivier,
Thank you for your comments. I'll also provide my comments inline:
On 28-6-2013 10:48, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Dick,
thank you for your message. I'll provide my answers in-line:
On 28/06/2013 09:46, Dick Kalkman wrote:
Dear Wolf,
I can not find this strange decision the (interesting) minutes of the board meeting. The discussion ended with "Wolf Ludwig: Simple repetition of the previous vote, same candidates, no new nominations, same voters." Nothing about new procedures a.s.o.
I can confirm that when the Board discussed the next steps forward, there was consensus that only two candidates should be on the ballot and that the "none of the above" selection would be removed. Otherwise, the new vote would yield the same problem as the first round of voting.
This is wrong. Yes, it's OK to limit the second round to the two candidates with the most votes. No, it's NOT OK to change the voting system. In a second round it's common practice that the candidate with the most votes wins. In a second round there is no absolute majority vote needed. We are tying to solve a problem that doesn't exists. And worse by violating voting principles.
Yes, you can indeed reduce options to come up with a clear result on the candidates, but that means that you limit the number of candidates. You don't violate international recognized and accepted voting principles! It's an upside world if you adopt voting rights and a voting system to optically compensate for failing bylaws (or failing bylaw interpretations). On this base the voting system and the voting results can not be supported and accepted.
The run-off vote is an "international recognized and accepted voting principle" - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system
Clear, but it doesn't say that removing the so called "none of the above option" or "blank vote" option is allowed. More deeply this would also partially violate the most basic rule that voting on natural persons is a secret. You are not allowed to control or see what or how somebody vote. Not by looking over her or his shoulder, not by letting a electronic system control this.
For the best of EURALO I prefer a quick, clear and acceptable operational solution by correcting and restarting the bigpulse voting by adding the none option. Just apply the common rule that in the second round the candidate with the most votes wins.
Without the elimination of one of the options, it is likely that the results will lead again in a deadlock.
No, in a second round the candidate with the most votes always wins. Yes, there is a possibility that both candidates get the same number of votes, but that is another problem.
For those people who do not wish to vote for either candidate, they can decide not to vote. As a result, the results will be decided from the votes cast and there is no problem of "none of the above".
No, this is violating the right to vote for none (blank vote) of the candidates.
It is also worth noting that in the past, the option "none of the above" was never offered. We are therefore entering new territory regarding this -- and the inclusion of "none of the above" is mandated by no bylaw. Quite the contrary, it was a decision of the Board to add it to the ballot. It can therefore be removed by decision of the Board.
I doubt if the board is authorized to do so, but anyway it's not in the minutes what saves us from adding this potential additional problem.
I hope this helps.
Kind regards,
Olivier
I think it's better for EURALO to solve this problem internally!
Best and most simple solution is: 1. Add the "none of the above" option; 2. Redo the vote.
Best Regards,
Dick Kalkman
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
Dear Wolf, I like to second the wise words of Eric. He is proposing a good and transparent compromise. I think that it's of up-most importance for the ICANN ALC structure that we avoid at all times compromised voting and organizational situations. A compromised voting situation is directly affecting the integrity, authority and the ability to influence of the ALC structure. At this moment ICANN is enduring lots of pressure and is in a major process of change. In supporting the change process the ALC structure can play a major role. This can however only comes true if the ALC structure keeps supporting a clean full multistakeholder model and is not compromised. As an organization we made a little operational mistake. Let recognize that and simple execute the proposed operational fix. The proposed simple re-election avoids lots of future problems and we come out of this situation more wisely and stronger. Best regards, Dick Kalkman President Internet Society The Netherlands ISOC The Netherlands Chapter E: d.h.kalkman@isoc.nl I: http://isoc.nl A: Prins Willem-Alexanderhof 5 Kamer i4.310 2595 BE Den Haag The Netherlands On 28-6-2013 17:08, Wolf Ludwig wrote:
Hi Eric,
I understand your point that there was a lot of confusion about this election issue after the Lisbon GA. But as repeatedly explained the last week and starting the day after the GA, we didn’t suggest or request an immediate time-out during the GA (what would have been a best way) because of a) the presence of our VIP guests (Fadi and Nigel) and you don’t deal with Bylaw checks and Internas while such guests are in the room, b) we faced a tight GA time schedule and had an ICANN – EURALO Outreach reception immediately after the GA at 19:30 – and there was NO WAY to skip it!
These were the given constraints and circumstances for and during the GA, and therefore the Bylaws check had to be postponed and done afterwards by a Board committee. And therefore we convened an extraordinary Board meeting on spot for Thursday night (as during the day people were busy with the EuroDIG – where Sandra and I still had an org. function).
And there was some indicating communication in Lisbon already (see my mailing "Discussions at tonight’s Board meeting and Bylaws" from 21/06/2013 03:38:07 and afterwards like "Proposal to move forward regarding the election of Euralo officers" from 24/06/2013 17:25:24 etc.)
For the rest of your suggestions, I personally do not agree that a “3rd voting round” would bring any better result – and simply by experience and practicality that any such step evokes a lot of work and mobilizing the members for another voting round is always a huge challenge. But I leave this up to the Board for further consideration.
Thanks for your understanding and regards, Wolf
Eric Tomson wrote Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:57:
Dear all,
The only comment I have to say is that I have been upset to learn (by accident) that the election had been invalidated AFTER the G.A. during another meeting where all ALS representatives were no longer present. So my first thought was "what's the meaning of participating in a G.A. if an official action is invalidated afterwards?" Then it took one week before I finally got the information explaining what happened and how it happened. Now I can understand all arguments and points of view (nobody is actually wrong), but I can only blame such a situation to have occurred in such a way that there was no clear communication about all this. Something like an official email or web page sent to everybody, explaining why the election had been invalidated and explaining the suggested next steps, would have been welcome.
Now, the only decent thing to do is to move forward. So, may I humbly suggest, to unlock the situation AND make everybody (or at least the majority) happy, to do a THIRD AND LAST election with the following principles : - let us all agree that the first vote in Lisbon was actually valid BUT the result was not clear enough, according to the bylaws which request an absolute majority (*) - let us all agree that the bylaws request a second vote BUT that this time the simple majority is requested - redesign the electronic vote by adding the option "none of the above" - let us all vote - publish the results - elect the candidate with the majority of votes (whatever the number of blank votes)
Do we all admit that the last days suffered from a lack of transparency but that we all wish to overcome it and do something constructive?
Thank you and regards to all.
(*) If the number of votes for A is greater than half the number of voters, then it is called absolute majority. If the number of votes for A is smaller than half the number of voters AND greater than the number of votes for B, then it is called simple majority. According to the bylaws, if there is no absolute majority during the first vote, we organize a second vote and the candidate with the simple majority wins.
Eric Tomson, for ISOC WALLONIA ---
-----Original Message----- From: euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dick Kalkman Sent: vendredi 28 juin 2013 11:22 To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: Discussion for At-Large Europe; At-Large Staff Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] PROBLEM: VOTE CREDENTIALS: EURALO Secretariat
Dear Olivier,
Thank you for your comments. I'll also provide my comments inline:
On 28-6-2013 10:48, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Dear Dick,
thank you for your message. I'll provide my answers in-line:
On 28/06/2013 09:46, Dick Kalkman wrote:
Dear Wolf,
I can not find this strange decision the (interesting) minutes of the board meeting. The discussion ended with "Wolf Ludwig: Simple repetition of the previous vote, same candidates, no new nominations, same voters." Nothing about new procedures a.s.o.
I can confirm that when the Board discussed the next steps forward, there was consensus that only two candidates should be on the ballot and that the "none of the above" selection would be removed. Otherwise, the new vote would yield the same problem as the first round of voting.
This is wrong. Yes, it's OK to limit the second round to the two candidates with the most votes. No, it's NOT OK to change the voting system. In a second round it's common practice that the candidate with the most votes wins. In a second round there is no absolute majority vote needed. We are tying to solve a problem that doesn't exists. And worse by violating voting principles.
Yes, you can indeed reduce options to come up with a clear result on the candidates, but that means that you limit the number of candidates. You don't violate international recognized and accepted voting principles! It's an upside world if you adopt voting rights and a voting system to optically compensate for failing bylaws (or failing bylaw interpretations). On this base the voting system and the voting results can not be supported and accepted.
The run-off vote is an "international recognized and accepted voting principle" - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system
Clear, but it doesn't say that removing the so called "none of the above option" or "blank vote" option is allowed. More deeply this would also partially violate the most basic rule that voting on natural persons is a secret. You are not allowed to control or see what or how somebody vote. Not by looking over her or his shoulder, not by letting a electronic system control this.
For the best of EURALO I prefer a quick, clear and acceptable operational solution by correcting and restarting the bigpulse voting by adding the none option. Just apply the common rule that in the second round the candidate with the most votes wins.
Without the elimination of one of the options, it is likely that the results will lead again in a deadlock.
No, in a second round the candidate with the most votes always wins. Yes, there is a possibility that both candidates get the same number of votes, but that is another problem.
For those people who do not wish to vote for either candidate, they can decide not to vote. As a result, the results will be decided from the votes cast and there is no problem of "none of the above".
No, this is violating the right to vote for none (blank vote) of the candidates.
It is also worth noting that in the past, the option "none of the above" was never offered. We are therefore entering new territory regarding this -- and the inclusion of "none of the above" is mandated by no bylaw. Quite the contrary, it was a decision of the Board to add it to the ballot. It can therefore be removed by decision of the Board.
I doubt if the board is authorized to do so, but anyway it's not in the minutes what saves us from adding this potential additional problem.
I hope this helps.
Kind regards,
Olivier
I think it's better for EURALO to solve this problem internally!
Best and most simple solution is: 1. Add the "none of the above" option; 2. Redo the vote.
Best Regards,
Dick Kalkman
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Dear Dick, Eric and Wolf, I personally have no issues with the elections as conducted but I see your points and I share your dedication of doing things right. I also share Wolf's (and I guess also some others') wish to get past this election issue quickly. Obviously these two wishes are contradictionary - either we want to be 120% correct and repeat this election as suggested and having to deal with this issue yet another week (at least, depending when we take this decision and what discussions need to be done beforehand) or we accept the elections as conducted, close this chapter as history and be able to finally continue an ordered business - but leaving a few people with bad feelings behind. I don't see that we are able to solve this contradiction by sending more e-mails. All arguments have already been made and both sides have some valid points. Therefore I invite all of those who are interested in solving this issue to another phone conference to discuss it in person. If we come to the conclusion that we will repeat the vote it would make it a quicker decision, shortening the whole timeframe we need to deal with this issue. Please let me know what you think. If we do that I'd like to set up a Doodle poll asap to facilitate a speedy solution. /Manuel -- Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch
Dear all, First of all, I would like to thank all of you for your settled or situational support. I would like to come back to what it's mean for me and to everybody in EURALO/ALAC/ICANN. Second, I do not see any sense in contiunting of this electoral process. But I have some questions, for which I hope to receive more than one (as usual) answers. Here they are: 1. What is the difference between EURALO Secretariat Election in 2011 (5 voices against 4) and EURALO Secretariat election 2013 (11 voices against 8)? https://community.icann.org/display/EURALO/EURALO+GA+Draft+Summary+Minutes+2... 2. Whose responsibility is to ensure transparency and accountability of any selection and election process? 3. Whose responsibility is to keep an order of selection process (for example, Board selection after EURALO officers elections means that EURALO officers are automatically the members of the Board. If the results of the first election have been changed, how it has to influence on the results of another one?) 4. If discussion of candidates is held in close way, how can they ensure, that there was no false or libel information shared behind their backs? 5. What is the responsibility of officers for defamation or for having some hidden conflict of interests in the process of selection/election? Best regards, Oksana On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Manuel Schneider < manuel.schneider@wikimedia.ch> wrote:
Dear Dick, Eric and Wolf,
I personally have no issues with the elections as conducted but I see your points and I share your dedication of doing things right. I also share Wolf's (and I guess also some others') wish to get past this election issue quickly. Obviously these two wishes are contradictionary - either we want to be 120% correct and repeat this election as suggested and having to deal with this issue yet another week (at least, depending when we take this decision and what discussions need to be done beforehand) or we accept the elections as conducted, close this chapter as history and be able to finally continue an ordered business - but leaving a few people with bad feelings behind.
I don't see that we are able to solve this contradiction by sending more e-mails. All arguments have already been made and both sides have some valid points. Therefore I invite all of those who are interested in solving this issue to another phone conference to discuss it in person. If we come to the conclusion that we will repeat the vote it would make it a quicker decision, shortening the whole timeframe we need to deal with this issue.
Please let me know what you think. If we do that I'd like to set up a Doodle poll asap to facilitate a speedy solution.
/Manuel -- Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Hi Oksana, please find some comments to your questions inserted below. EMP wrote Sun, 30 Jun 2013 21:59: (...)
But I have some questions, for which I hope to receive more than one (as usual) answers. Here they are:
1. What is the difference between EURALO Secretariat Election in 2011 (5 voices against 4) and EURALO Secretariat election 2013 (11 voices against 8)?
https://community.icann.org/display/EURALO/EURALO+GA+Draft+Summary+Minutes+2...
(Wolf) The Belgrade GA was no F2F meeting and had no on-spot quorum. Therefore, we had to conduct the Bylaws amendments by an Online vote in advance. And the tight voting result for the Secretariat in Belgrade, as you mentioned, couldn't be considered as valid but was a *recommendation* by the GA to be announced and approved by the list afterwards. This is noted at the bottom line of the Belgrade minutes -- see: "P. S. As mentioned before, the voting results of the Belgrade GA, points 10 to 13, were considered as recommendations and submitted to the EURALO list for approval afterwards. The recommended results were posted on Wednesday night, 1 June, with a 3-days deadline until Saturday night, 4 June 2011. As no objections (besides one approval) were raised within these days, the Belgrade elections are carried." This is the only way to conduct any voting or decisions where a quorate majority is needed in a non-F2F meeting by a preliminary recommendation *to be approved by the list* (if no objections are raised) afterwards.
2. Whose responsibility is to ensure transparency and accountability of any selection and election process?
(Wolf) The RALO leadership with the Board (if operational) and At-Large Staff.
3. Whose responsibility is to keep an order of selection process (for example, Board selection after EURALO officers elections means that EURALO officers are automatically the members of the Board. If the results of the first election have been changed, how it has to influence on the results of another one?)
(Wolf) As pointed out before, EURALO Officers are Ex-Officio members on the Board without voting rights (like the ALAC members). And everybody who is willing to "actively contribute" to the regular EURALO work is welcome on the Board. This means, even if the result of the 1st election has been changed, you can be a member of the Board. The responsibilities are the same like above (point 2).
4. If discussion of candidates is held in close way, how can they ensure, that there was no false or libel information shared behind their backs?
(Wolf) I don't understand what this question insinuates exactly? Discussions of candidates or personal particularities are usually done in a way to provide some discretion. This might be difficult from time to time when performance criteria are involved (see ALAC's Rules of Procedure and the like).
5. What is the responsibility of officers for defamation or for having some hidden conflict of interests in the process of selection/election?
(Wolf) Again, I don't understand what this question insinuates exactly? This has to be seen on a case-by-case basis. Best, Wolf
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Manuel Schneider < manuel.schneider@wikimedia.ch> wrote:
Dear Dick, Eric and Wolf,
I personally have no issues with the elections as conducted but I see your points and I share your dedication of doing things right. I also share Wolf's (and I guess also some others') wish to get past this election issue quickly. Obviously these two wishes are contradictionary - either we want to be 120% correct and repeat this election as suggested and having to deal with this issue yet another week (at least, depending when we take this decision and what discussions need to be done beforehand) or we accept the elections as conducted, close this chapter as history and be able to finally continue an ordered business - but leaving a few people with bad feelings behind.
I don't see that we are able to solve this contradiction by sending more e-mails. All arguments have already been made and both sides have some valid points. Therefore I invite all of those who are interested in solving this issue to another phone conference to discuss it in person. If we come to the conclusion that we will repeat the vote it would make it a quicker decision, shortening the whole timeframe we need to deal with this issue.
Please let me know what you think. If we do that I'd like to set up a Doodle poll asap to facilitate a speedy solution.
/Manuel -- Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
Dear all, I'd like to reiterate my plea at the extraordinary Board meeting in Lisbon: let's keep the procedural issue (following the bylaws) separated from other issues (relating to the actual candidates etc.) IMO, the process now completed remains within the broad framework of the bylaws. The first round of voting was inconclusive, not producing an absolute majority; there was a second round between the two candidates that received the most votes, and the winner emerged. No need for a third round or further deliberations on that. (Of course, the bylaws don't event require and election of the Secretary/Secretariat; In my view, they don't prohibit it either) IMO, no need to have a "None of the above" category in any elections. Those who cannot make up their mind can either abstain, in which case their (non)action doesn't count, or leaving a blank or "spoiled" ballot, in which case it does. What we need now is a thorough discussion on the bylaws. They need clarification, and some terms need to be defined for our purposes. Eg., "absolute majority", "simple majority" etc have different meanings in the American and British parliamentary practice, not to mention all other languages and political cultures. It might also we worthwhile to take a look at the ALAC/At large Rules of Procedure,that we recently reviewed and reorganized, and realign our rules with them, where appropriate. Best, Yrjö
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 15:46:20 +0200 From: wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net To: euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org CC: oliver.passek@gruene-europa.de; staff@atlarge.icann.org; egov@annette-muehlberg.de Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] PROBLEM: VOTE CREDENTIALS: EURALO Secretariat
Hi Oksana,
please find some comments to your questions inserted below.
EMP wrote Sun, 30 Jun 2013 21:59: (...)
But I have some questions, for which I hope to receive more than one (as usual) answers. Here they are:
1. What is the difference between EURALO Secretariat Election in 2011 (5 voices against 4) and EURALO Secretariat election 2013 (11 voices against 8)?
https://community.icann.org/display/EURALO/EURALO+GA+Draft+Summary+Minutes+2...
(Wolf) The Belgrade GA was no F2F meeting and had no on-spot quorum. Therefore, we had to conduct the Bylaws amendments by an Online vote in advance. And the tight voting result for the Secretariat in Belgrade, as you mentioned, couldn't be considered as valid but was a *recommendation* by the GA to be announced and approved by the list afterwards. This is noted at the bottom line of the Belgrade minutes -- see: "P. S. As mentioned before, the voting results of the Belgrade GA, points 10 to 13, were considered as recommendations and submitted to the EURALO list for approval afterwards. The recommended results were posted on Wednesday night, 1 June, with a 3-days deadline until Saturday night, 4 June 2011. As no objections (besides one approval) were raised within these days, the Belgrade elections are carried." This is the only way to conduct any voting or decisions where a quorate majority is needed in a non-F2F meeting by a preliminary recommendation *to be approved by the list* (if no objections are raised) afterwards.
2. Whose responsibility is to ensure transparency and accountability of any selection and election process?
(Wolf) The RALO leadership with the Board (if operational) and At-Large Staff.
3. Whose responsibility is to keep an order of selection process (for example, Board selection after EURALO officers elections means that EURALO officers are automatically the members of the Board. If the results of the first election have been changed, how it has to influence on the results of another one?)
(Wolf) As pointed out before, EURALO Officers are Ex-Officio members on the Board without voting rights (like the ALAC members). And everybody who is willing to "actively contribute" to the regular EURALO work is welcome on the Board. This means, even if the result of the 1st election has been changed, you can be a member of the Board. The responsibilities are the same like above (point 2).
4. If discussion of candidates is held in close way, how can they ensure, that there was no false or libel information shared behind their backs?
(Wolf) I don't understand what this question insinuates exactly? Discussions of candidates or personal particularities are usually done in a way to provide some discretion. This might be difficult from time to time when performance criteria are involved (see ALAC's Rules of Procedure and the like).
5. What is the responsibility of officers for defamation or for having some hidden conflict of interests in the process of selection/election?
(Wolf) Again, I don't understand what this question insinuates exactly? This has to be seen on a case-by-case basis.
Best, Wolf
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Manuel Schneider < manuel.schneider@wikimedia.ch> wrote:
Dear Dick, Eric and Wolf,
I personally have no issues with the elections as conducted but I see your points and I share your dedication of doing things right. I also share Wolf's (and I guess also some others') wish to get past this election issue quickly. Obviously these two wishes are contradictionary - either we want to be 120% correct and repeat this election as suggested and having to deal with this issue yet another week (at least, depending when we take this decision and what discussions need to be done beforehand) or we accept the elections as conducted, close this chapter as history and be able to finally continue an ordered business - but leaving a few people with bad feelings behind.
I don't see that we are able to solve this contradiction by sending more e-mails. All arguments have already been made and both sides have some valid points. Therefore I invite all of those who are interested in solving this issue to another phone conference to discuss it in person. If we come to the conclusion that we will repeat the vote it would make it a quicker decision, shortening the whole timeframe we need to deal with this issue.
Please let me know what you think. If we do that I'd like to set up a Doodle poll asap to facilitate a speedy solution.
/Manuel -- Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Good evening: EURALO is loosing credibility in this affair. May I recall that:
I do not support repeating the EURALO election.
CW Begin forwarded message:
From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Proposal to move forward regarding the election of Euralo officers Date: 24 Jun 2013 10:04:20 GMT+02:00 To: Discussion for At-Large Europe <euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: ERIC TOMSON <et@skynet.be>, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net>
Good morning:
1. May I clarify that I do not support repeating the EURALO election. If the meeting on 19 June was flawed in any way, we may put that down to experience and do it better next time.
Dear Yrjö, You stated that: "Those who cannot make up their mind can either abstain, in which case their (non)action doesn't count, or leaving a blank or "spoiled" ballot, in which case it does." I don't like the negative framing of those voters who want to vote blank or none of the above. Why do you think that EURALO members can not make up their mind? There are several perfectly legal reasons why an EURALO member can decide to vote blank or none of the above. For example when there are equal highly qualified candidates. That has noting to do with "cannot make up their mind" of EURALO members. It are your own words that there must also be a choice for abstaining and for voting blank. The second voting round was however sadly compromised by using a electronic voting system that made voting blank impossible (tested) and also made none of the above impossible (option artificially removed). Best Regards, Dick Kalkman On 1-7-2013 22:50, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:
Dear all, I'd like to reiterate my plea at the extraordinary Board meeting in Lisbon: let's keep the procedural issue (following the bylaws) separated from other issues (relating to the actual candidates etc.) IMO, the process now completed remains within the broad framework of the bylaws. The first round of voting was inconclusive, not producing an absolute majority; there was a second round between the two candidates that received the most votes, and the winner emerged. No need for a third round or further deliberations on that. (Of course, the bylaws don't event require and election of the Secretary/Secretariat; In my view, they don't prohibit it either) IMO, no need to have a "None of the above" category in any elections. Those who cannot make up their mind can either abstain, in which case their (non)action doesn't count, or leaving a blank or "spoiled" ballot, in which case it does. What we need now is a thorough discussion on the bylaws. They need clarification, and some terms need to be defined for our purposes. Eg., "absolute majority", "simple majority" etc have different meanings in the American and British parliamentary practice, not to mention all other languages and political cultures. It might also we worthwhile to take a look at the ALAC/At large Rules of Procedure,that we recently reviewed and reorganized, and realign our rules with them, where appropriate. Best, Yrjö
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 15:46:20 +0200 From: wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net To: euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org CC: oliver.passek@gruene-europa.de; staff@atlarge.icann.org; egov@annette-muehlberg.de Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] PROBLEM: VOTE CREDENTIALS: EURALO Secretariat
Hi Oksana,
please find some comments to your questions inserted below.
EMP wrote Sun, 30 Jun 2013 21:59: (...)
But I have some questions, for which I hope to receive more than one (as usual) answers. Here they are:
1. What is the difference between EURALO Secretariat Election in 2011 (5 voices against 4) and EURALO Secretariat election 2013 (11 voices against 8)?
https://community.icann.org/display/EURALO/EURALO+GA+Draft+Summary+Minutes+2...
(Wolf) The Belgrade GA was no F2F meeting and had no on-spot quorum. Therefore, we had to conduct the Bylaws amendments by an Online vote in advance. And the tight voting result for the Secretariat in Belgrade, as you mentioned, couldn't be considered as valid but was a *recommendation* by the GA to be announced and approved by the list afterwards. This is noted at the bottom line of the Belgrade minutes -- see: "P. S. As mentioned before, the voting results of the Belgrade GA, points 10 to 13, were considered as recommendations and submitted to the EURALO list for approval afterwards. The recommended results were posted on Wednesday night, 1 June, with a 3-days deadline until Saturday night, 4 June 2011. As no objections (besides one approval) were raised within these days, the Belgrade elections are carried." This is the only way to conduct any voting or decisions where a quorate majority is needed in a non-F2F meeting by a preliminary recommendation *to be approved by the list* (if no objections are raised) afterwards.
2. Whose responsibility is to ensure transparency and accountability of any selection and election process?
(Wolf) The RALO leadership with the Board (if operational) and At-Large Staff.
3. Whose responsibility is to keep an order of selection process (for example, Board selection after EURALO officers elections means that EURALO officers are automatically the members of the Board. If the results of the first election have been changed, how it has to influence on the results of another one?)
(Wolf) As pointed out before, EURALO Officers are Ex-Officio members on the Board without voting rights (like the ALAC members). And everybody who is willing to "actively contribute" to the regular EURALO work is welcome on the Board. This means, even if the result of the 1st election has been changed, you can be a member of the Board. The responsibilities are the same like above (point 2).
4. If discussion of candidates is held in close way, how can they ensure, that there was no false or libel information shared behind their backs?
(Wolf) I don't understand what this question insinuates exactly? Discussions of candidates or personal particularities are usually done in a way to provide some discretion. This might be difficult from time to time when performance criteria are involved (see ALAC's Rules of Procedure and the like).
5. What is the responsibility of officers for defamation or for having some hidden conflict of interests in the process of selection/election?
(Wolf) Again, I don't understand what this question insinuates exactly? This has to be seen on a case-by-case basis.
Best, Wolf
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Manuel Schneider < manuel.schneider@wikimedia.ch> wrote:
Dear Dick, Eric and Wolf,
I personally have no issues with the elections as conducted but I see your points and I share your dedication of doing things right. I also share Wolf's (and I guess also some others') wish to get past this election issue quickly. Obviously these two wishes are contradictionary - either we want to be 120% correct and repeat this election as suggested and having to deal with this issue yet another week (at least, depending when we take this decision and what discussions need to be done beforehand) or we accept the elections as conducted, close this chapter as history and be able to finally continue an ordered business - but leaving a few people with bad feelings behind.
I don't see that we are able to solve this contradiction by sending more e-mails. All arguments have already been made and both sides have some valid points. Therefore I invite all of those who are interested in solving this issue to another phone conference to discuss it in person. If we come to the conclusion that we will repeat the vote it would make it a quicker decision, shortening the whole timeframe we need to deal with this issue.
Please let me know what you think. If we do that I'd like to set up a Doodle poll asap to facilitate a speedy solution.
/Manuel -- Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Dear Dick, I'm sorry to use an expression you perceived as negative. What I meant was voters who are not satisfied with the choices offered and thus unwilling to vote for any of them. Best, Yrjö
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 10:33:51 +0200 From: d.h.kalkman@isoc.nl To: euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] PROBLEM: VOTE CREDENTIALS: EURALO Secretariat
Dear Yrjö,
You stated that: "Those who cannot make up their mind can either abstain, in which case their (non)action doesn't count, or leaving a blank or "spoiled" ballot, in which case it does."
I don't like the negative framing of those voters who want to vote blank or none of the above. Why do you think that EURALO members can not make up their mind? There are several perfectly legal reasons why an EURALO member can decide to vote blank or none of the above. For example when there are equal highly qualified candidates. That has noting to do with "cannot make up their mind" of EURALO members.
It are your own words that there must also be a choice for abstaining and for voting blank. The second voting round was however sadly compromised by using a electronic voting system that made voting blank impossible (tested) and also made none of the above impossible (option artificially removed).
Best Regards,
Dick Kalkman
On 1-7-2013 22:50, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:
Dear all, I'd like to reiterate my plea at the extraordinary Board meeting in Lisbon: let's keep the procedural issue (following the bylaws) separated from other issues (relating to the actual candidates etc.) IMO, the process now completed remains within the broad framework of the bylaws. The first round of voting was inconclusive, not producing an absolute majority; there was a second round between the two candidates that received the most votes, and the winner emerged. No need for a third round or further deliberations on that. (Of course, the bylaws don't event require and election of the Secretary/Secretariat; In my view, they don't prohibit it either) IMO, no need to have a "None of the above" category in any elections. Those who cannot make up their mind can either abstain, in which case their (non)action doesn't count, or leaving a blank or "spoiled" ballot, in which case it does. What we need now is a thorough discussion on the bylaws. They need clarification, and some terms need to be defined for our purposes. Eg., "absolute majority", "simple majority" etc have different meanings in the American and British parliamentary practice, not to mention all other languages and political cultures. It might also we worthwhile to take a look at the ALAC/At large Rules of Procedure,that we recently reviewed and reorganized, and realign our rules with them, where appropriate. Best, Yrjö
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 15:46:20 +0200 From: wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net To: euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org CC: oliver.passek@gruene-europa.de; staff@atlarge.icann.org; egov@annette-muehlberg.de Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] PROBLEM: VOTE CREDENTIALS: EURALO Secretariat
Hi Oksana,
please find some comments to your questions inserted below.
EMP wrote Sun, 30 Jun 2013 21:59: (...)
But I have some questions, for which I hope to receive more than one (as usual) answers. Here they are:
1. What is the difference between EURALO Secretariat Election in 2011 (5 voices against 4) and EURALO Secretariat election 2013 (11 voices against 8)?
https://community.icann.org/display/EURALO/EURALO+GA+Draft+Summary+Minutes+2...
(Wolf) The Belgrade GA was no F2F meeting and had no on-spot quorum. Therefore, we had to conduct the Bylaws amendments by an Online vote in advance. And the tight voting result for the Secretariat in Belgrade, as you mentioned, couldn't be considered as valid but was a *recommendation* by the GA to be announced and approved by the list afterwards. This is noted at the bottom line of the Belgrade minutes -- see: "P. S. As mentioned before, the voting results of the Belgrade GA, points 10 to 13, were considered as recommendations and submitted to the EURALO list for approval afterwards. The recommended results were posted on Wednesday night, 1 June, with a 3-days deadline until Saturday night, 4 June 2011. As no objections (besides one approval) were raised within these days, the Belgrade elections are carried." This is the only way to conduct any voting or decisions where a quorate majority is needed in a non-F2F meeting by a preliminary recommendation *to be approved by the list* (if no objections are raised) afterwards.
2. Whose responsibility is to ensure transparency and accountability of any selection and election process?
(Wolf) The RALO leadership with the Board (if operational) and At-Large Staff.
3. Whose responsibility is to keep an order of selection process (for example, Board selection after EURALO officers elections means that EURALO officers are automatically the members of the Board. If the results of the first election have been changed, how it has to influence on the results of another one?)
(Wolf) As pointed out before, EURALO Officers are Ex-Officio members on the Board without voting rights (like the ALAC members). And everybody who is willing to "actively contribute" to the regular EURALO work is welcome on the Board. This means, even if the result of the 1st election has been changed, you can be a member of the Board. The responsibilities are the same like above (point 2).
4. If discussion of candidates is held in close way, how can they ensure, that there was no false or libel information shared behind their backs?
(Wolf) I don't understand what this question insinuates exactly? Discussions of candidates or personal particularities are usually done in a way to provide some discretion. This might be difficult from time to time when performance criteria are involved (see ALAC's Rules of Procedure and the like).
5. What is the responsibility of officers for defamation or for having some hidden conflict of interests in the process of selection/election?
(Wolf) Again, I don't understand what this question insinuates exactly? This has to be seen on a case-by-case basis.
Best, Wolf
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Manuel Schneider < manuel.schneider@wikimedia.ch> wrote:
Dear Dick, Eric and Wolf,
I personally have no issues with the elections as conducted but I see your points and I share your dedication of doing things right. I also share Wolf's (and I guess also some others') wish to get past this election issue quickly. Obviously these two wishes are contradictionary - either we want to be 120% correct and repeat this election as suggested and having to deal with this issue yet another week (at least, depending when we take this decision and what discussions need to be done beforehand) or we accept the elections as conducted, close this chapter as history and be able to finally continue an ordered business - but leaving a few people with bad feelings behind.
I don't see that we are able to solve this contradiction by sending more e-mails. All arguments have already been made and both sides have some valid points. Therefore I invite all of those who are interested in solving this issue to another phone conference to discuss it in person. If we come to the conclusion that we will repeat the vote it would make it a quicker decision, shortening the whole timeframe we need to deal with this issue.
Please let me know what you think. If we do that I'd like to set up a Doodle poll asap to facilitate a speedy solution.
/Manuel -- Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
Dear Yrjö, Thanks, no problem ;) I think personally that we have to move asap far, far away from this compromising situation. This (and any) compromised election is like poison. It can hurts organizations and the people associated very badly. EURALO deserves better than becoming a compromised and / or paralyzed organization. Best Regards, Dick Kalkman On 2-7-2013 12:05, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:
Dear Dick,
I'm sorry to use an expression you perceived as negative. What I meant was voters who are not satisfied with the choices offered and thus unwilling to vote for any of them.
Best,
Yrjö
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 10:33:51 +0200 From: d.h.kalkman@isoc.nl To: euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] PROBLEM: VOTE CREDENTIALS: EURALO Secretariat
Dear Yrjö,
You stated that: "Those who cannot make up their mind can either abstain, in which case their (non)action doesn't count, or leaving a blank or "spoiled" ballot, in which case it does."
I don't like the negative framing of those voters who want to vote blank or none of the above. Why do you think that EURALO members can not make up their mind? There are several perfectly legal reasons why an EURALO member can decide to vote blank or none of the above. For example when there are equal highly qualified candidates. That has noting to do with "cannot make up their mind" of EURALO members.
It are your own words that there must also be a choice for abstaining and for voting blank. The second voting round was however sadly compromised by using a electronic voting system that made voting blank impossible (tested) and also made none of the above impossible (option artificially removed).
Best Regards,
Dick Kalkman
On 1-7-2013 22:50, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:
Dear all, I'd like to reiterate my plea at the extraordinary Board meeting in Lisbon: let's keep the procedural issue (following the bylaws) separated from other issues (relating to the actual candidates etc.) IMO, the process now completed remains within the broad framework of the bylaws. The first round of voting was inconclusive, not producing an absolute majority; there was a second round between the two candidates that received the most votes, and the winner emerged. No need for a third round or further deliberations on that. (Of course, the bylaws don't event require and election of the Secretary/Secretariat; In my view, they don't prohibit it either) IMO, no need to have a "None of the above" category in any elections. Those who cannot make up their mind can either abstain, in which case their (non)action doesn't count, or leaving a blank or "spoiled" ballot, in which case it does. What we need now is a thorough discussion on the bylaws. They need clarification, and some terms need to be defined for our purposes. Eg., "absolute majority", "simple majority" etc have different meanings in the American and British parliamentary practice, not to mention all other languages and political cultures. It might also we worthwhile to take a look at the ALAC/At large Rules of Procedure,that we recently reviewed and reorganized, and realign our rules with them, where appropriate. Best, Yrjö
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 15:46:20 +0200 From: wolf.ludwig@comunica-ch.net To: euro-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org CC: oliver.passek@gruene-europa.de; staff@atlarge.icann.org; egov@annette-muehlberg.de Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] PROBLEM: VOTE CREDENTIALS: EURALO Secretariat
Hi Oksana,
please find some comments to your questions inserted below.
EMP wrote Sun, 30 Jun 2013 21:59: (...)
But I have some questions, for which I hope to receive more than one (as usual) answers. Here they are:
1. What is the difference between EURALO Secretariat Election in 2011 (5 voices against 4) and EURALO Secretariat election 2013 (11 voices against 8)?
https://community.icann.org/display/EURALO/EURALO+GA+Draft+Summary+Minutes+2...
(Wolf) The Belgrade GA was no F2F meeting and had no on-spot quorum. Therefore, we had to conduct the Bylaws amendments by an Online vote in advance. And the tight voting result for the Secretariat in Belgrade, as you mentioned, couldn't be considered as valid but was a *recommendation* by the GA to be announced and approved by the list afterwards. This is noted at the bottom line of the Belgrade minutes -- see: "P. S. As mentioned before, the voting results of the Belgrade GA, points 10 to 13, were considered as recommendations and submitted to the EURALO list for approval afterwards. The recommended results were posted on Wednesday night, 1 June, with a 3-days deadline until Saturday night, 4 June 2011. As no objections (besides one approval) were raised within these days, the Belgrade elections are carried." This is the only way to conduct any voting or decisions where a quorate majority is needed in a non-F2F meeting by a preliminary recommendation *to be approved by the list* (if no objections are raised) afterwards.
2. Whose responsibility is to ensure transparency and accountability of any selection and election process?
(Wolf) The RALO leadership with the Board (if operational) and At-Large Staff.
3. Whose responsibility is to keep an order of selection process (for example, Board selection after EURALO officers elections means that EURALO officers are automatically the members of the Board. If the results of the first election have been changed, how it has to influence on the results of another one?)
(Wolf) As pointed out before, EURALO Officers are Ex-Officio members on the Board without voting rights (like the ALAC members). And everybody who is willing to "actively contribute" to the regular EURALO work is welcome on the Board. This means, even if the result of the 1st election has been changed, you can be a member of the Board. The responsibilities are the same like above (point 2).
4. If discussion of candidates is held in close way, how can they ensure, that there was no false or libel information shared behind their backs?
(Wolf) I don't understand what this question insinuates exactly? Discussions of candidates or personal particularities are usually done in a way to provide some discretion. This might be difficult from time to time when performance criteria are involved (see ALAC's Rules of Procedure and the like).
5. What is the responsibility of officers for defamation or for having some hidden conflict of interests in the process of selection/election?
(Wolf) Again, I don't understand what this question insinuates exactly? This has to be seen on a case-by-case basis.
Best, Wolf
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Manuel Schneider < manuel.schneider@wikimedia.ch> wrote:
Dear Dick, Eric and Wolf,
I personally have no issues with the elections as conducted but I see your points and I share your dedication of doing things right. I also share Wolf's (and I guess also some others') wish to get past this election issue quickly. Obviously these two wishes are contradictionary - either we want to be 120% correct and repeat this election as suggested and having to deal with this issue yet another week (at least, depending when we take this decision and what discussions need to be done beforehand) or we accept the elections as conducted, close this chapter as history and be able to finally continue an ordered business - but leaving a few people with bad feelings behind.
I don't see that we are able to solve this contradiction by sending more e-mails. All arguments have already been made and both sides have some valid points. Therefore I invite all of those who are interested in solving this issue to another phone conference to discuss it in person. If we come to the conclusion that we will repeat the vote it would make it a quicker decision, shortening the whole timeframe we need to deal with this issue.
Please let me know what you think. If we do that I'd like to set up a Doodle poll asap to facilitate a speedy solution.
/Manuel -- Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org
Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
_______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello, Am 28.06.2013 10:48, schrieb Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond:
I can confirm that when the Board discussed the next steps forward, there was consensus that only two candidates should be on the ballot and that the "none of the above" selection would be removed. Otherwise, the new vote would yield the same problem as the first round of voting.
The 2nd run-off election means, that there is no longer a need for an absolute majority, so it the only problem which we get could be Both candidats recieves the same number of votes. Only one vote more for one of the candidats would be an result! BTW: We try to solve a problem we don't have. In the Bylaws is written: "12 The Secretariat 12.1 A Secretariat, composed of professional individual(s), may be appointed or engaged on a paid or unpaid basis by the Board in order to handle the administrative requirements of the Association. 12.2 The Secretariat may be permanently or temporarily authorised by the Board to deal with all questions concerning the administration of the Association with the exception of those questions reserved by other Bodies of the Association, unless said bodies shall from time to time delegate such functions as they so desire, subject to statutory acceptability and best practice, to the Secretariat. 12.3 As far as possible, the Secretariat’s staff should be representative of the region." So dear bord members: Feel free to appoint or engage a professional individual for the Secretariat. Kind Regards, Werner Hülsmann - -- Dipl. Inform. Werner Hülsmann - - Mitglied der Deutschen Vereinigung für Datenschutz (DVD) e.V. - - - Anerkannter Datenschutzsachverständiger* - Expert for legal and technical evaluations for the European Privacy Seal (EuroPriSe)** Alt-Tempelhof 13 - D-12099 Berlin Mobil: 0179 / 14 28 594 - FAX: 030 / 25 20 99 93 E-Mail: huelsmann@datenschutzverein.org Blog: http://extdsb.info http://www.datenschutzverein.de *) "Beim Unabhängigen Landeszentrum für Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein anerkannter Sachverständiger für IT-Produkte (rechtlich und technisch)" sowie Mitglied der Deutschen Sachverständigen-Gesellschaft **) <http://www.european-privacy-seal.eu/> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRzWWWAAoJEGF1IJWIbX7arfEIAKTx3ZtR0wsrqwNGF+coCWQp TFPLmJPaSsqrnm4Edee+QidG+nzBO0+9ps87STsCN+Y6LAMWIRedS2YMZdXuKjfr OCqkd+4VSr/BL6UNCsNeFmCKoegAgkrgriqXGRi4jtnt+tKLcxPb1xLicTO4gBK1 OpUh5Jsz47AAGDnBSbvG1mdJbY59fO19CwWMxEU7k+BDuEl+er9T98en2bBcgZ/k x58Kf5KHT31FRVDne/Xm6PstdGmOJU69XAVnu3X5Khlti0XJoeFBMJhmybZtkkxZ dNc/khJD1Q37J1/a2dRSjkSiGiWu0JDYyUHyVnxke5xTd8Wgr7JZcMu9mF+PrLc= =okIm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello Wolf, Am 28.06.2013 03:04, schrieb Wolf Ludwig: (...)
In a 2nd run-off voting round (Stichwahl) you usually reduce options to come up with a clear result on the candidates and not to face a similar dilemma as in the first round. That's why the Bigpulse voting tool was designed like this = to enable a clear voting result.
The 2nd run-off election does not mean, that there is no posibility to abstain, it only means, that there is no longer a need for an absolute majority Kind Regards, Werner Hülsmann - -- Dipl. Inform. Werner Hülsmann - - Mitglied der Deutschen Vereinigung für Datenschutz (DVD) e.V. - - - Anerkannter Datenschutzsachverständiger* - Expert for legal and technical evaluations for the European Privacy Seal (EuroPriSe)** Alt-Tempelhof 13 - D-12099 Berlin Mobil: 0179 / 14 28 594 - FAX: 030 / 25 20 99 93 E-Mail: huelsmann@datenschutzverein.org Blog: http://extdsb.info http://www.datenschutzverein.de *) "Beim Unabhängigen Landeszentrum für Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein anerkannter Sachverständiger für IT-Produkte (rechtlich und technisch)" sowie Mitglied der Deutschen Sachverständigen-Gesellschaft **) <http://www.european-privacy-seal.eu/> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRzWMOAAoJEGF1IJWIbX7a85wIAJ4vzr8p+26Txvqc6uyJBET1 lSn7YJ0umZs3fg9qSgFb+HKI/N9pMp1KrByeisrr3VhZ/o32x3c5AX+UPtEgiqAR NyBCD1ZYjUEJKy+OZ0bKg53/QI2ThIiTmBpfMM6SR3UNnBSfhnfI8AVUot6niNcy eN3zuwxdfEkSxCXyNYYwuVN4Qn2MVrY+NkWReYevHKsuvpuWFGk2JvjwB6VjAfkw KHETjI4el87ZthrM21YSziQmwanJa+PUF95OW9SNusRPX4ZWkSOCWHyjHI4eBD01 hOBF1yupqbeOQhtoO49Y8UXGv7FKmdkF9R3z0jsZZiz5C1bo6sF4u8DPX3CCm5I= =LzA0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hoi Dick, Am 28.06.2013 02:09, schrieb Dick Kalkman:
So voting was possible for Yuliya, Oksana or None.
However the Bigpuls voting system said: [...] So voting is possible for Yuliya, Oksana but NOT for None.
This leads to the conclusion that this election process is inconsistent with the last week election at the GA. [...] My first impression is that one voting option ("none") is missing. At least this is confusing and leads to the question why is this implemented this way?
that has been discussed prior the new vote has been set up and apart of the fact that we want to come to a real result this time also the bylaws are clear about this: ---- 11.20 For all elections in the General Assembly, candidates shall require an absolute majority of votes of the participating members. If no candidate receives an absolute majority a run-off election shall take place between the two candidates with the greatest number of votes. ---- The two candidates with the greatest number of votes were Yulja and Oksana, "None of the above" is not a candidate ;-) You can find the blyaws now online (the newest revision): https://community.icann.org/display/EURALO/Articles+of+Association Groeten, Manuel -- Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch
Dear Manuel, Clear that "If no candidate receives an absolute majority a run-off election shall take place between the two candidates with the greatest number of votes." That is common bylaw practice, at least in Europe. But that doesn't mean that you change the voting SYSTEM. There is no legitimacy for that. Best Regards, Dick Kalkman On 28-6-2013 10:15, Manuel Schneider wrote:
Hoi Dick,
Am 28.06.2013 02:09, schrieb Dick Kalkman:
So voting was possible for Yuliya, Oksana or None.
However the Bigpuls voting system said: [...] So voting is possible for Yuliya, Oksana but NOT for None.
This leads to the conclusion that this election process is inconsistent with the last week election at the GA. [...] My first impression is that one voting option ("none") is missing. At least this is confusing and leads to the question why is this implemented this way?
that has been discussed prior the new vote has been set up and apart of the fact that we want to come to a real result this time also the bylaws are clear about this:
---- 11.20 For all elections in the General Assembly, candidates shall require an absolute majority of votes of the participating members. If no candidate receives an absolute majority a run-off election shall take place between the two candidates with the greatest number of votes. ----
The two candidates with the greatest number of votes were Yulja and Oksana, "None of the above" is not a candidate ;-)
You can find the blyaws now online (the newest revision): https://community.icann.org/display/EURALO/Articles+of+Association
Groeten,
Manuel
Am 28.06.2013 10:31, schrieb Dick Kalkman:
That is common bylaw practice, at least in Europe. But that doesn't mean that you change the voting SYSTEM.
please excuse my stupid question but: What is the change of the system we (might) have done here (except going from pen-and-paper to an electronic system - which in my opinion shouldn't matter here)? I don't want to argue in a certain direction here, I just want to understand your argument. /Manuel -- Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch
Dear Manual, The change is an unwanted change the voting rights and principles. In the GA election (and almost ever other election) we could vote for a candidate OR vote for none candidate OR don't vote. In the electronic system (as set up) we can only can vote for a candidate OR don't vote. Worse there was also a framing that "don't vote" means voting for "none" of the candidates. Best Regards, Dick Kalkman On 28-6-2013 10:34, Manuel Schneider wrote:
Am 28.06.2013 10:31, schrieb Dick Kalkman:
That is common bylaw practice, at least in Europe. But that doesn't mean that you change the voting SYSTEM.
please excuse my stupid question but: What is the change of the system we (might) have done here (except going from pen-and-paper to an electronic system - which in my opinion shouldn't matter here)? I don't want to argue in a certain direction here, I just want to understand your argument.
/Manuel
participants (9)
-
"W. Hülsmann (DVD e.V.)" -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Dick Kalkman -
EMP -
Eric Tomson -
Manuel Schneider -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Wolf Ludwig -
Yrjö Länsipuro