RE: [council] GNSO election results

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>]

Bruce:

Thank you for your judicious handling of this sensitive problem.

If there were any basis for challenging NCUC elections
I agree that you have proposed to resolve the problem 
correctly. But I think you may have overlooked a far 
more serious issue.

Any challenge to the seating and voting capacity of the NCUC 
members must have been made BEFORE the voting results 
were known, and indeed BEFORE the election even took place. 
Our representatives were seated and given ballots. One cannot 
wait until an election is over and, if one does not like the result, 
start looking for excuses to challenge people. That is a far more
serious violation of basic voting principles than anything that
did occur or could ever occur in the NCUC. 

On the eve of this election, my vote was actively courted
by CBUC members, and I have recorded telephone messages
to prove it. If my vote was legitimate and worth getting then,
why and how did it become illegitimate after the results were
known?

Because of that, I fail to see why this challenge was even
entertained. By calculating what the votes would have been 
without our participation you are giving a credence
to this challenge that it does not deserve. 

As for the challenge to our election, suffice it to say this:
We had 5 open positions and 4 people ran. There was no
contest in any of the regions. It's kind of hard to steal or
manipulate an election under those circumstances. I would like
to know who this challenger thinks was harmed by our process.

Since our active members are not full-time paid lobbyists, we have to work
hard simply to get people to be able to fill these demanding
positions, and the ones who do quickly get burnt out, as Harold
can attest. Whatever problems or confusion came out of that
election was due to a lack of resources and organizational
capacity. I'm committed to fixing that. This ill-motivated "challenge"
won't help; it will simply make things worse.
--MM

>>> "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@att.com> 03/13/03 08:55PM >>>

I object to the interpretation that the Chair has conveyed that "if a whole constituency" is removed,
then the election stands. I cannot agree. If the constituency challenge is not validated, then my challenge/objection can be withdrawn.

The "balance" of votes --giving 6 votes to the Registries and 6 votes to the Registrars was predicated on a "balance".
SHOULD the balance be disrupted, then the voting algorithm must be changed.

I hereby register a protest, pending the outcome of the determination of the constituency challenge. After that determination, I will consider whether to withdraw my challenge.

Marilyn Cade
BC officer
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] 
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 8:31 PM
To: council@dnso.org 
Cc: Louis Touton
Subject: [council] GNSO election results


Hello All,

The tally of the votes cast in the first round of voting are:

Michael Palage 	  14 votes
Alejandro Pisanty  6 votes
Philip Sheppard    4 votes
Barbara Simons	   0 votes
==========================
Total 		  24 votes

Note Charles Shaban was appointed by the Business Users Constituency to
vote in place of Philip Sheppard, who is a candidate in the election.

The votes were cast as follows (the codes below match those on the
ballots you received; each member can ascertain that his or her vote was
counted correctly):

K13b4Z:[x] Alejandro Pisanty
K21c2Z:[x] Alejandro Pisanty
K32a6Z:[x] Michael Palage
K4f9fZ:[x] Philip Sheppard
K547aZ:[x] Alejandro Pisanty
K6872Z:[x] Michael Palage
K7068Z:[x] Alejandro Pisanty
K8713Z:[x] Philip Sheppard
K887bZ:[x] Michael Palage
K909aZ:[x] Michael Palage
K9471Z:[x] Michael Palage
Ka470Z:[x] Michael Palage
Kab9fZ:[x] Michael Palage
Kac13Z:[x] Philip Sheppard
Kc323Z:[x] Alejandro Pisanty
Ke63cZ:[x] Alejandro Pisanty
Kt9a7Z:[x] Michael Palage
Kz52dZ:[x] Philip Sheppard

Please note that the ICANN Secretary has received a challenge concerning
the voting process in the recent elections within the Non-Commercial
Users Constituency for their three positions on the GNSO Council.  The
vote within the non-commercial constituency must be carried out
consistent with the by-laws for that constituency.

No determination has been made yet as regarding this challenge and the
matter will be investigated.  However, based on the allegations made in
the challenge it appears that, if the challenge is sustained, either one
or all three of the Non-Commercial Users Constituency's seats on the
GNSO Council would become vacant.  In either case, the results of the
vote for Seat 14 on the Board would not be affected, as follows:

If the result of the challenge is that only one of the Non-Commercial
Users Constituency seats becomes vacant, then the vote would be:

Michael Palage 	  14 votes
Alejandro Pisanty  5 votes
Philip Sheppard    4 votes
Barbara Simons	   0 votes
==========================
Total 		  23 votes

The 14 votes cast for Mr. Palage are a majority of the total number of
the votes of all GNSO Council members (23).

If the result of the challenge is that all three of the Non-Commercial
Users Constituency seats become vacant, then the vote would be:

Michael Palage 	  12 votes
Alejandro Pisanty  5 votes
Philip Sheppard    4 votes
Barbara Simons	   0 votes
==========================
Total 		  21 votes

The 12 votes cast for Mr. Palage are a majority of the total number of
the votes of all Council members (21).

If the challenge is rejected, of course, the votes will continue to be
as noted at the top of this e-mail.  In view of this, no outcome of the
challenge would affect the result of the vote for Seat 14.

I propose therefore the following steps:

(1) We will publicly announce the results of the first round of voting
to be:

Michael Palage 	  14 votes
Alejandro Pisanty  6 votes
Philip Sheppard    4 votes
Barbara Simons	   0 votes
==========================
Total 		  24 votes

Thus there is no need for a further round of voting as Michael Palage
has a majority of the votes of all GNSO Council members.  It will be
noted that these results are preliminary until ratified in the council
meeting in Rio.

(2) At the ICANN meeting in Rio, the GNSO council will vote to ratify
these results. Council members should check the information on how the
votes were cast and confirm that their vote was recorded correctly.  The
GNSO Council will be confirming in Rio that the election results are a
true record of how the votes were cast.

(3) The ICANN Secretary will publicly announce that a challenge has been
received regarding the recent elections within the Non-Commercial Users
Constituency, and the election process will be investigated to ensure
that it was consistent with the by-laws for that constituency.
The ICANN Secretary will note that the result of this process does not
affect the majority held by Michael Palage, in the GNSO Council election. r counted correctly):


At this stage I don't see the need for a teleconference, as the
challenge regarding the Non-Commercial Users Constituency does not
affect the election result, and it is not for the Council to investigate
the processes within the Non-Commercial Users Constituency.  We should
proceed with Council business assuming that the non-commercial elections
were correct until told by the ICANN Secretary otherwise.

Council members please let me know if you disagree with the proposed
steps above, and let me know if you feel the need for a council
teleconference on the subject.  Please note it is not appropriate for
the Council to discuss the challenge to the Non-Commercial Users
Constituency procedures.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin