Section 10 - GNSO Structure

The following quote from the text regarding the recent NCSG elections is, in my view inflammatory.  I regard it as inaccurate, and I would request that Westlake Associates change it prior to releasing the draft for comments:

"It was widely commented by survey respondents and interviewees that the NCSG has issues that inhibit its effectiveness.  Essentially the NCUC, dominated by small or single person groups, is always likely to have the numbers to out-vote NPOC, which represents often larger but fewer NPOs. All four NCSG members recently elected to the GNSO Council have come from the NCUC because it has a far greater number of members than the NPOC, and voting is ‘first past the post’, rather than a form of proportional representation."

Since I am one of the four elected new NCSG members, I may be taking this paragraph rather personally, but I think Westlake should refer readers to the rules on voting procedure rather than citing a comment as gospel.  The tacit assumption appears to be that each constituency only votes for its own members, which I know is not the case.  Anyone can examine the voting numbers and see this.  NPOC only ran one candidate in this election.  Given the geographical distribution of seats (no more than two seats from each region, to the extent possible, and one North American seat is occupied for another year) and the fact that the only NPOC candidate was from North America, as I am, it meant that I was competing with their only candidate.  Since all other candidates were assured of a seat because no one ran against them, it might have been prudent for NPOC to have encouraged their folks from other regions to run as well.  In any case, I think it is inappropriate to state as fact either that NCUC can always outvote NPOC, or that the weighted voting does not actually work in favour of NPOC  (see below).  The bottom line remains, members have to volunteer to run, and members have to remember to vote.  Hopefully, they will vote for the person they feel will represent them best and work hard for the issues they care about, not just by constituency block.  I believe the NCSG voting system does a pretty good job of promoting that outcome at the moment, and would be interested to see facts about how some other system could produce a better outcome.

Cited Reference to GNSO Voting Procedures: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter#Charter-4.0VotingProcedures

Not true.

In stakeholder group elections the NCSG uses a weighted simple plurality voting system, not a pure ‘first past the post’ method, as alleged. Large organizations, defined as those with more than 600 members, receive 4 votes, small organizations receive 2 votes and individuals receive 1 vote. The weighted voting structure favors large organizations.

Excluding organizations that are members of both constituencies (5 in total), the NCUC actually has more large organizations as members (21) than does the NPOC (20). The allegation we have heard that the NPOC represents only large organizations and the NCUC small organizations and individuals is not true.

The Westlake Team’s analysis of the 2014 NCSG election to the GNSO Council assumes a causation that, again, simply is not true. For a constituency to have a member win a stakeholder group election it must run candidates. Only one NPOC member ran for the four available GNSO. Council positions in 2014.

Although smaller in number, the NPOC is large enough to win stakeholder group elections within the NCSG on its own were its members to run and vote for their candidates. Under the weighted voting system the NPOC members, including those who are also members of the NCUC, currently have a voting potential of 152 votes. In the election cited the lowest number of votes received by a winning Council candidate was 106 votes. The NPOC is certainly capable of winning NCSG elections under the weighted simple plurality voting system should their members both run for office and be motivated to vote for their candidate.

Moreover, the electoral division within the NCSG is not as stark as the Westlake Team’s statement may indicate. There is widespread inter-constituency electoral interaction and support. Of the 114 ballots counted in the 2014 NCSG Council election, only one ballot voted exclusively for the member candidate from the NPOC All other ballots indicating support for the NPOC member also contained votes for NCUC member candidates. All four elected Councilors received support on the NCSG list from individual members of the NPOC, some from former past NPOC chairs.

In parallel, it should be noted that the NPOC has had a member on the GNSO Council as recently as October of 2014. Appointed by the NCSG EC---after a suggestion by NCUC---to fill the remainder of a term vacated by an ICANN Board appointee, that NPOC Council member was eligible to run for re-election but chose not to do so.