Dick Kalkman d.h.kalkman at isoc.nl
Sun Jun 30 09:54:15 UTC 2013

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 at 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,
>> ---
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: euro-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> [mailto:euro-discuss-bounces at 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 at 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 at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss
> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org

More information about the EURO-Discuss mailing list