<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Lucida Grande" size="+1">+1. Further to that, in
response to Klaus' last email, I think I am trying to be
constructive. I don't think it is helpful to dismiss the concerns
expressed by quite a few members of NCSG with "</font><font
face="Lucida Grande">Its time to move on, its time to be
constructive."</font>
<p><font face="Lucida Grande"><font size="+1">I would still like an
answer to the question I posed a while ago. To me, this is a
great example of how we fail to communicate effectively as a
management team here at NCSG. Absent a clear reason NOT to
accede to the request, and I have yet to see one, why on earth
turn this into a process fracas? I have repeated my question
below, highlighted in larger type.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Lucida Grande"><font size="+1">Stephanie Perrin</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">During the all
candidates meeting, I ventured to suggest that things were not
as bright and sunny as they appeared. Obviously, this fracas
over voting and transparency of council positions is
confirming my assessment of the situation. I am disappointed
in a number of things, process is only one. I cannot see
why, on day one of the election, the EC of NCSG (or the Chair,
who is also running for election) is refusing to comply with a
rather simple request. <font size="+2">What is everyone
afraid of in changing the ballot? </font> As someone
applying to serve for two more years, I think blocking a
request for changing the ballot does much to promote
distrust. Surely, as Klaus has said, we have a lot of
important work to do. However, trust, accountability, and
making this electoral process as useful as it can be is worth
reissuing a ballot in my view. Dredging up procedural reasons
not to, given how we have relied on informal mechanisms and
email discussion of process (rather than changing the Charter
and Bylaws) strikes me as a waste of time, except insofar as
it illuminates the Charter work we need to do.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">However, it is
certainly helping with engagement, and given Neal's expertise
in voting and elections perhaps he will volunteer with helping
in redrafting these documents after the election!</font></font></p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016-08-22 16:37, Amr Elsadr wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:B00B6236-BCDE-451A-B657-94C4DD463213@egyptig.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Klaus,
You still haven’t pointed me towards any text in the charter that prohibits the use of NOTA. :)
And also:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Aug 22, 2016, at 10:17 PM, Klaus Stoll <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kdrstoll@GMAIL.COM"><kdrstoll@GMAIL.COM></a> wrote:
Dear Amr
Thanks for your comments. My thoughts are:
We need to go religiously by the charter and what the NCSG-EC does.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
My point is that I believe that this has been done using NOTA over the past few years. In fact, I believe that the changes being suggested now conflict with the charter, because the EC hasn’t approved the procedures being introduced during this election cycle. I do not believe that it is right or in the best interest of the NCSG for us to wait until after the elections to challenge this.
Thanks again.
Amr
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>