Eric Tomson et at skynet.be
Fri Jun 28 12:57:34 UTC 2013

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

Eric Tomson,

-----Original Message-----
From: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dick
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
>> 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

> 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org

Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org

More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list