[UA-discuss] 2023 UASG Chair Election Results

[Seda Akbulut]

Dear Nazar and Jim,

Thank you for your emails. We will be happy to provide clarification regarding the communication sent for announcing the UASG chair election.

The election process was open for public comment period last October https://uasg.tech/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/UASG-Election-Process-Draft.pdf. Based on the inputs, the new election process was finalized and published on https://uasg.tech/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/UASG-Election-Process-2023-onwards.pdf.

We had contracted eBallot.com to issue the ballots, count and verify them.  The results announced have been based on their certified input. The election process document includes the template for announcing the election results. When announcing the election results, this template letter has been used using the certified information from eBallot. As the template, which was reviewed by the community and UASG Leadership, does not include the details of the number of casted votes for each candidate, this information is not included.

If the community asks for sharing this data, this can be reviewed by Coordination WG and the new Leadership for the update of the next election process.

I hope you find this information helpful.

Have a great day ahead.

Kind regards,
UASG Election Coordination Team


From: UA-discuss <ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Jim DeLaHunt via UA-discuss <ua-discuss at icann.org>
Reply to: Jim DeLaHunt <list+uasg at jdlh.com>
Date: 30 March 2023 Thursday 20:17
To: "ua-discuss at icann.org" <ua-discuss at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] 2023 UASG Chair Election Results

On 2023-03-30 05:20, Nazar Nicholas via UA-discuss wrote:

Your reporting on the results of the election is inadequate. It only shows the total number of votes as 244. It does not say how many voted for the chair for example. Please give us the breakdown of the total vote cast, votes for the victor, votes for the loser, abstaintation votes, spoilt vote etc.

I agree with this. Part of the credibility of the election process is the credibility of the counting process. I agree with should have a breakdown of how many votes for each candidate and how many ballots were spoiled. We should have the names of the election monitors, the people who stake their integrity to certify that the counting process was correct and that the results have integrity.

If this was more than a two-candidate contest using single member plurality voting, I would be advocating that the anonymised ballot data be released, so that people could confirm the count themselves. For this simple contest structure, the ballot data does not tell us more than the breakdown of votes by candidate or spoiled-ballot status already tells us.

Best regards,
    —Jim DeLaHunt

--

    --Jim DeLaHunt, jdlh at jdlh.com<mailto:jdlh at jdlh.com>     http://blog.jdlh.com/ [blog.jdlh.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/blog.jdlh.com/__;!!PtGJab4!91QnYPERUM9HhbfKzee8N1FUWEZfJ4mKnmZ6Wt-2Qo8NpQPDMTzK1mlpHPJFX_Ma6ju-PMA9QAkcKpqLaDZ8dDt8GYgf$> (http://jdlh.com/ [jdlh.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/jdlh.com/__;!!PtGJab4!91QnYPERUM9HhbfKzee8N1FUWEZfJ4mKnmZ6Wt-2Qo8NpQPDMTzK1mlpHPJFX_Ma6ju-PMA9QAkcKpqLaDZ8dE1ZLQfd$>)

      multilingual websites consultant, Vancouver, Canada
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ua-discuss/attachments/20230403/8edf0f11/attachment.html>