[EURO-Discuss] PROBLEM: VOTE CREDENTIALS: EURALO Secretariat
d.h.kalkman at isoc.nl
Tue Jul 2 08:33:51 UTC 2013
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
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.
>> Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2013 15:46:20 +0200
>> From: wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net
>> To: euro-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> CC: oliver.passek at gruene-europa.de; staff at atlarge.icann.org; egov at 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
>> (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.
>>> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Manuel Schneider <
>>> manuel.schneider at 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.
>>>> Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
>>>> Lausanne, +41 (21) 34066-22 - www.wikimedia.ch
>>>> EURO-Discuss mailing list
>>>> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
>>> EURO-Discuss mailing list
>>> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
>> EuroDIG Secretariat
>> mobile +41 79 204 83 87
>> Skype: Wolf-Ludwig
>> EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation
>> Profile on LinkedIn
>> EURO-Discuss mailing list
>> EURO-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org
> 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