[seedig] Official motivated objection regarding the decision of the Election Committee of 26 November 2019 on the proposal of two new members of the SEEDIG Executive Committee

[Narine Khachatryan]

No, you are totally wrong, Mr Stojicevic, I never ever supported you, as I
never ever supported the practice of attacking people for expressing their
opinions.

I never supported cyberbullying and personal attacks.

Regards to everyone on the list,
Narine

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, 21:57 Dusan Stojicevic, <dusan at dukes.in.rs> wrote:

> Dear Narine,
>
> Can I understand that you agree with me? Thanks for support.
>
> Cheers,
> Dusan
>
> sre, 4. dec 2019. 18:51 Narine Khachatryan <
> ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com> je napisao/la:
>
>> Thank you for your opinion about the process, Mr Stojicevic, but now it
>> is not only Mr Caf's requirement, but a community member, as well.
>>
>> The bad practice is when certain voices are constantly silenced - this is
>> really very damaging to accountability, transparency and good governance.
>>
>> And most importantly, this is damaging the future of Seedig, by the way.
>>
>> Regards, Narine
>>
>> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, 21:32 Dušan Stojičević, <dusan at dukes.in.rs> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Dusan C,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for clarification.
>>>
>>> So you say formal requirement is the deadline? From ToR? Can you point
>>> me where it’s written? All guys keep pointing to ToR – I am now hooked to
>>> learn all points!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As for the rest – thanks for clarification again. So, you see this part
>>> as “accountability, transparency and good practice”, and I believe this is
>>> your opinion?
>>>
>>> First, as you are one of the writers of ToR, you had opportunity to
>>> write this good practice in the ToR. Why didn’t you? There is a proper
>>> place for that - section called Transparency…
>>>
>>> Secondly, ele com is not extensive hand of exe com, according to ToR and
>>> it gives everything publicly. Therefore, things are totally opposite – this
>>> is where you are trying bad practice with top down methods. Observers and
>>> community can ask for explanation, not exe com.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My two cents,
>>>
>>> Dusan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Dušan Caf [mailto:dusan.caf at gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* 4. децембар 2019. 17:55
>>> *To:* Dušan Stojičević <dusan at dukes.in.rs>
>>> *Cc:* elections at seedig.net; Seedig <seedig at rnids.rs>; execom at seedig.net
>>> *Subject:* Re: [seedig] Official motivated objection regarding the
>>> decision of the Election Committee of 26 November 2019 on the proposal of
>>> two new members of the SEEDIG Executive Committee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Dušan S,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the email to which you replied, I only asked the election committee
>>> to add a deadline for submitting additional objections. This is a formal
>>> requirement for such a decision.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The rest is a matter of accountability, transparency and good
>>> governance. It is also a common practice in similar organisations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You are of course free to advocate against the aforementioned principles.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> With kind regards,
>>>
>>> Dušan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4 Dec 2019, at 16:53, Dušan Stojičević <dusan at dukes.in.rs> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kids from election committee did something bad, definitely, because the
>>> teacher yield: “no, no, you didn’t finish your homework”.
>>>
>>> As long as the teacher can be tough on kids, there will be no problem.
>>> Old school, I like it! ;)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> p.s. -
>>>
>>> Dear Dusan C,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can I ask you, please, under what point in ToR, election committee
>>> should send anything to exe com, and where is in the ToR obligation of
>>> “post-election assessment of the election process”?
>>>
>>> If there is nothing in ToR – can you explain why you are asking
>>> something what is not in ToR and who gave you that right? Because you are
>>> the member of exe com?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for the help – I am confused like others on the list,
>>> lost in points of ToR and I will appreciate some guidance on this!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Dusan
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* seedig [mailto:seedig-bounces at lists.rnids.rs
>>> <seedig-bounces at lists.rnids.rs>] *On Behalf Of *Dušan Caf via seedig
>>> *Sent:* 3. децембар 2019. 23:48
>>> *To:* elections at seedig.net
>>> *Cc:* Seedig <seedig at rnids.rs>; execom at seedig.net
>>> *Subject:* Re: [seedig] Official motivated objection regarding the
>>> decision of the Election Committee of 26 November 2019 on the proposal of
>>> two new members of the SEEDIG Executive Committee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear members of the Election Committee,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Your decision is incomplete as it does not contain a deadline for
>>> submitting additional objections.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dušan Caf
>>>
>>> Member | SEEDIG Executive Committee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> PS
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am looking forward to the minutes of the Election Committee meetings
>>> and/or discussions and to its final report. It should be submitted to the
>>> Executive Committee for post-election assessment of the election process.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3 Dec 2019, at 22:22, Barbara Povse <barbara.povse at arnes.si> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Fotjon,
>>>
>>> Having carefully reviewed your objection, the Election Committee (ElCom)
>>> has decided (by consensus) not to change its previous decision. Our
>>> rationale is provided below.
>>>
>>>    1. The ElCom thoroughly followed the ToR and acted in good faith
>>>    throughout the entire process.
>>>    2. The ElCom (according to Art. 6.17) has noticed the discrepancy in
>>>    your self-nomination and kindly asked you to clarify this. As you have
>>>    indicated yourself, you voluntarily decided to change your SH to civil
>>>    society. You could have chosen to keep ‘government’ and change your
>>>    affiliation. But it is not in the mandate of the ElCom to advise the
>>>    candidate. As you've stated:
>>>    “As I applied on the last day of the nomination cycle, I could not
>>>    check properly and consult with the community or get appropriate
>>>    authorisation to apply, both as government/ministry affiliation and
>>>    government stakeholder group. So I changed the stakeholder group to civil
>>>    society, as in that moment I thought this was the most suitable fix to the
>>>    issue raised  by the Election Committee. I realised only later that I was
>>>    wrong..."
>>>    3. You have changed your stakeholder group to government in your
>>>    complaint. If known before elections, this would have made the decision of
>>>    the ElCom different and easier. But, unfortunately, the ElCom cannot change
>>>    its decision upon a retroactive clarification. We needed to take a decision
>>>    upon available data at the time when the decision was made. According to
>>>    Art 6.31 of the ToR, the ElCom believed that, with 3 members from the same
>>>    SH group (civil society), the Executive Committee (ExCom) would have been
>>>    profoundly unbalanced, as this particular stakeholder group would have had
>>>    majority on the committee. We therefore considered that the diversity
>>>    criteria was not being met. Hence our proposal that the candidate with the
>>>    next higher no. of the votes received (only 1 vote less, that means a Art
>>>    6.31. d. has been fulfilled) become an ExCom member.
>>>    4. In considering the need for diversity in the ExCom, the ElCom
>>>    needed to follow the order in which the diversity criteria are listed in
>>>    ToR (see Art. 3.2: stakeholder, country, gender balance).
>>>    5. In taking this tough decision, we have followed the precedent set
>>>    in 2017, when the ElCom made a similar decision by allowing a candidate
>>>    with less votes to be on the ExCom to achieve more diversity. This is one
>>>    of the reasons why we strongly believe that we are acting fully in
>>>    accordance with the ToR.
>>>    6. While we understand your clarification regarding your affiliation
>>>    with the government SH group, this does not change the fact that the
>>>    process was followed closely. Allowing you to change your affiliation
>>>    retroactively would mean allowing a change in information that voters took
>>>    into account when voting. If they had different information, they might
>>>    have voted differently. So such a retroactive change is, in our view, not
>>>    possible. Moreover, if we do so, we risk creating a dangerous precedent for
>>>    any future elections: it would then be acceptable to change candidate
>>>    information after the vote itself.
>>>    7. All points above are in response to points 1-5 in your objection.
>>>    Point 6 does not relate to procedural grounds, so the ElCom has not
>>>    considered it.
>>>
>>> Instruction on legal remedy:
>>>
>>> According to art 6.32. - ToR ,  d. If any additional objection is
>>> raised, the entire election process is re-initiated.
>>>
>>> On behalf of Elcom,
>>>
>>> Barbara Povše
>>>
>>> On 30. 11. 2019 23:27, fotjon kosta wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear members of the Election Committee,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  I am filing an official motivated objection regarding the decision of
>>> the Election Committee of 26 November 2019 on the proposal of two new
>>> members of the SEEDIG Executive Committee in the process of partial
>>> elections for the SEEDIG Executive Committee 2019.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  The objection is made on procedural grounds.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  1.) As a candidate who received the second highest number of votes, in
>>> my opinion, I am eligible to be elected as a member of the Executive
>>> Committee. The Election Committee, in accordance with the rule of law, is
>>> obliged to follow the hierarchy of rules as set in the Terms of Reference
>>> (hereinafter referred to as “ToR”) and has no discretion right for an
>>> arbitrary decision making nor for arbitrary interpretation of the ToR
>>> provisions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  In accordance with Art. 6.30 of the ToR, the candidates who receive
>>> the most votes during the voting process shall become members of the
>>> executive committee, provided that the diversity criteria as defined in
>>> Art. 3.2 of the ToR are met.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  In accordance with the election results, the two candidates with the
>>> highest number of votes were Ms Olga Kyryliuk with 43 votes and myself with
>>> 18 votes, and accordingly we should become new members of the SEEDIG
>>> Executive Committee, provided that the diversity criteria mentioned in Art.
>>> 3.2 of the ToR are met.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  With Ms Kyryliuk and myself being elected into the role of the SEEDIG
>>> Executive Committee and by considering also the remaining members of the
>>> Executive Committee, the diversity criteria as defined in Art. 3.2 of the
>>> ToR are met as:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> a. Minimum three stakeholder groups are represented on the committee;
>>>
>>> b. Each member represents a different country;
>>>
>>> c. There is gender balance among the members.
>>>
>>>  In this case, the composition of the executive committee does reflect
>>> stakeholder and country diversity, and gender balance as defined by the ToR
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  2) The actual proposal by the Election Committee is in breach of Art.
>>> 6.30 of the ToR and is subsidiary to the main proposal as set in point 1),
>>> and is legitimate and in accordance with the ToR if and only if I do not
>>> accept the position of the member of the Executive Committee and provided
>>> that the proposal is in line with the election results and at the same time
>>> with the provisions of the ToR.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  3) The actual proposal by the Election Committee is also in breach of
>>> Art 6.31of the ToR as (i) the voting process could lead to the creation of
>>> the Executive Committee that would also reflect the diversity criteria as
>>> provided in Art. 3.2 of the ToR, (ii) as the total sum of votes (as
>>> received during the voting process) of the proposed executive committee
>>> members, based on the highest number of votes, would also be the highest,
>>> and (iii) as the proposal of the Election Committee did not meet the gender
>>> balance criteria (Art. 3.2(c)), which would require at least 2 male or
>>> female members out of five members of the Executive Committee. In Europe,
>>> but also in other parts of the world, it is generally accepted that to
>>> achieve gender balance in executive bodies at least 40% of both sexes need
>>> to be represented. In the case of the SEEDIG Executive Committee, that
>>> implies that at least 2 members must be men or women, which is not the case
>>> in the actual proposal of the Election Committee, which is therefore in
>>> breach of the ToR.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  4) It should also be mentioned, and this could be proved by the
>>> correspondence, that in the process of nomination the Election Committee
>>> suggested/informed that I should change my application. Initially, I
>>> applied as the Albanian IGF affiliation and the government stakeholder
>>> group. However, I was notified by the Election Committee that (citation):
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  “There seems to be one discrepancy in your nomination. We kindly ask
>>> you to correct this, to allow us to publish your nomination on the SEEDIG
>>> website.
>>>
>>>
>>> You have indicated Albania IGF as your affiliation, but you have chosen
>>> government as a stakeholder group. Because an IGF initiative cannot count
>>> as a governmental entity, please either indicate a different affiliation or
>>> a different stakeholder group, making sure that the two match”.
>>>
>>>  As I applied on the last day of the nomination cycle, I could not
>>> check properly and consult with the community or get appropriate
>>> authorisation to apply, both as government/ministry affiliation and
>>> government stakeholder group. So I changed the stakeholder group to civil
>>> society, as in that moment I thought this was the most suitable fix to the
>>> issue raised  by the Election Committee. I realised only later that I was
>>> wrong as IGF initiatives are multistakeholder bodies and not civil society.
>>> In Albanian IGF, I act as a government stakeholder and this should also be
>>> my stakeholder group in SEEDIG. I have been working for the Government of
>>> Albania for many years, being involved in the creation and implementation
>>> of digital policies, which is also clearly reflected in my nomination for
>>> elections 2019, but also in my nominations for elections 2017 and the
>>> SEEDIG Ambassadors Programme, and in many of my other contributions to IGF,
>>> EuroDIG, ICANN, RIPE NCC, SIF etc. during the last 5 years.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  It is known to the SEEDIG community, and as members of the Election
>>> Committee belong to this community it is reasonable to expect that you know
>>> as well, that I have always participated in SEEDIG as a government
>>> stakeholder, but also with the affiliation of the Albanian IGF, as from
>>> 2017, and I also applied and was selected for the SEEDIG Ambassadors
>>> Programme in 2019 as a government stakeholder.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  The fact that I was suggested by the Election Committee also
>>> reinforces the rational for my election, as in this case the Executive
>>> Committee would have four stakeholder groups represented. Besides, the
>>> Executive Committee would be more gender balanced and the Western Balkan
>>> countries would also be represented in the Executive Committee.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  5) In relation to the above, I would like to remind you all of the
>>> 2017 elections, when Ms Kyryliuk had more votes than the person actually
>>> being elected, with rational of the Executive Committee work continuity,
>>> but also with more stakeholders represented in the Executive Committee.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  6) My references as submitted in the nomination demonstrate my
>>> superior qualifications for the position of the member of the SEEDIG
>>> Executive Committee. I have participated in most of the SEEDIG annual
>>> meetings and contributed to its work throughout the years, in 2019 also as
>>> a SEEDIG ambassador. Besides, I have been involved in all major Internet
>>> governance processes and truly understand multistakeholderism.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear members of the Election Committee,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As the decision of the Election Committee of 26 November 2019 on the
>>> proposal of two new members of the SEEDIG Executive Committee in the
>>> process of partial elections for the SEEDIG Executive Committee 2019 is in
>>> breach of the ToR and not in line with the SEEDIG values and principles, I
>>> truly believe that you will reconsider your decision.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you in advance for your consideration of my motivated objection.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Fotjon Kosta
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> PS
>>>
>>> I would like to share with you that this letter was written in a very
>>> difficult situation for me due to multiple earthquakes that hit Tirana and
>>> the nearby areas, causing dozens of casualties, and due to a difficult
>>> situation in the country. However, even in these difficult moments, I have
>>> found motivation to express my interest in becoming a member of the SEEDIG
>>> Executive Committee, representing the community that expressed its faith
>>> and trust in me, and contributing to the work of SEEDIG.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.rnids.rs/pipermail/seedig/attachments/20191204/913f342e/attachment.htm>