[governance] IGC coordinator election results

[Hartmut Glaser]

*Congratulations Izumi Aizu as new IGC Coordinator.

Wish you all the best.
*

*best regards

Hartmut Glaser*

==================================
On 10/10/2010 01:19, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> I am pleased to announce the results of the 2010 IGF coordinator 
> elections.  All candidates polled respectably, indicating that they 
> were all well-qualified nominees for the post.  However, we have a 
> clear winner.  Congratulations and welcome to my new colleague, Izumi 
> Aizu.
>
> There were 107 attempts to vote, of which 103 were valid responses. 
>  The invalid responses were two respondents who commenced the survey 
> but did not answer compulsory questions (one "Are you a member of the 
> IGC" and the other, having answered that "Yes", not answering "Have 
> you already voted"), another respondent who abandoned the survey 
> before voting for a coordinator and tried again later successfully, 
> and one who attempted to vote for coordinator twice.
>
> Of the 103 valid responses, 101 were from self-identified IGC members, 
> 95 of whom claimed not to have voted already.  Four of these remaining 
> qualified voters did not choose to vote for a coordinator.  Of the 
> remaining 91 votes cast, Izumi received 52.  Thanks also to Rafik who 
> received 13 votes and Marilia who received 26.
>
> The public statistics for the poll, and a spreadsheet with the results 
> of the election are both available at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/38. 
>  A photo of the new coordinators is available at 
> http://www.igcaucus.org/node/17.
>
> I will write separately about the charter vote and the nominations 
> committee.
>
> Here are some questions you may have about the results (though I can't 
> really call them "frequently asked"):
>
> Q: Why do the public statistics show 100 (not 103) responses?
>
> A: Because by design of the software, these statistics exclude 
> "incomplete" responses.  Of the four respondents who did not choose a 
> coordinator, one just skipped that question, whereas the others quit 
> the survey in progress.  The former's response is included in the 
> public statistics, and the others are not.
>
> Q. Why do the public statistics show 98 (not 101) voters asserting 
> membership of the IGC?
>
> A. See the answer to the previous question.
>
> Q: Why do the public statistics show 92 (not 95) persons claiming not 
> to have already voted?
>
> A: See the answer to the previous question.
>
> Q. Why do there appear to be some votes missing from the CSV file 
> (based on the consecutive numbering)?
>
> A. The missing ones at the beginning where from testing by me and 
> Ginger.  There are a small number of missing votes where I deleted 
> them because the person mistakenly claimed to have voted already (see 
> below).
>
> Q. Why do three people appear to have voted twice?
>
> A. One of these people mistakenly answered that he had voted already. 
>  I told him to vote again using the token sent to his other email 
> address.  Another gave up before getting to the coordinator vote, then 
> started again; her first response was treated as invalid.  The third 
> does appear to be a double vote; in this case, the first response has 
> been treated as invalid and the second, more complete response taken 
> as definitive.  It is not counted in the public statistics, but is 
> retained in the spreadsheet of results.
>
> Q. Why did some people say that they had already voted, when they hadn't?
>
> A. I don't know, maybe they didn't read the question carefully enough? 
>  Anyone who contacted me to ask for the opportunity to re-cast their 
> vote, was able to do so.  A few, unfortunately, didn't contact me, and 
> missed out on the opportunity to vote...
>
> Q. How did one person vote anonymously?
>
> A. It was not really anonymous, they just didn't provide their name. 
>  Their email address is news [at] chania.di.uoa.gr 
> <http://chania.di.uoa.gr>.  Anyway, theirs was one of the invalid 
> responses that was not counted, as they did not answer a compulsory 
> question.
>
> Q. What is the difference between "No", "None" and "N/A"?
>
> A. "No" means you were asked a Yes/No question and chose the latter. 
>  "None", for the coordinator vote, means you were qualified to vote 
> and chose to support none of the candidates.  "N/A" means either you 
> were not qualified to vote, or you didn't answer that question.
>
> -- 
>
> *Jeremy Malcolm
> Project Coordinator*
> Consumers International
> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> *CI is 50*
> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement 
> in 2010.
> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect 
> consumer rights around the world.
> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. 
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101010/4e6b4bd1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t