<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Shall I interpret that
as an invitation to step down? One of our problems, it seems
to me, is the as yet un-discussed issue of why we do not have
any contestants for these positions. If it requires us
un-fresh faces to get out of the way, then I propose we start
the elections all over again. I will step aside if everyone
else does. Would be a great new start!!<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Stephanie Perrin</font></font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016-08-23 15:02, Klaus Stoll wrote:<br>
[snip]<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:cf0d14ba-a054-6318-1b32-13f798a97602@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p>Basically what I am asking for is a NCSG restart under a set of
previously agreed rules and if possible with a bunch of fresh
new faces without too much baggage.</p>
<p>Yours</p>
<p>Klaus<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/23/2016 11:56 AM, Mueller,
Milton L wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:SN2PR0701MB733124F13DF1ABB3F006A2FA1EB0@SN2PR0701MB733.namprd07.prod.outlook.com"
type="cite">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Now
we have a formal appeal of the EC “decision” to go ahead
with the election without fixing the ballot.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W6xVs0M2vZkzGnYY543BJQ0SOIfD-5xZYYaTYzZg-ok/">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W6xVs0M2vZkzGnYY543BJQ0SOIfD-5xZYYaTYzZg-ok/</a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Olevie
is correct (see below) that the NCSG EC needs to take some
responsibility now and resolve the conflict.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I
note that </span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">Arsène
has said that he is unaware of any formal decision from
the EC. I looked back at the records and he is correct,
the EC never made a decision. All we had was a unilateral
statement from Tapani that the discussion was “closed.”
The problem is, Tapani does not have the authority to
unilaterally make a decision for the EC. I see that both
Robin and Monika, two members of the EC, have signed the
appeal letter, which shows very clearly that there is no
consensus within the EC for Tapani’s approach to this
problem. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-color:#1F4E79;mso-style-textfill-fill-alpha:100.0%">This
is a time and an issue where we need to achieve unity and
agreement. If the appeal is not resolved, the entire
election will be thrown out and we will have to have a
vote of the entire membership on the appeal. This will
consume a lot of time and energy. Please, EC members,
Tapani, all of you, take responsibility and attempt to
come to a resolution of this problem. You have to get ALL
the EC members together and you have to find an agreement
that works for all of you.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Dr.
Milton L Mueller<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Professor,
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://spp.gatech.edu/"><span
style="color:#0563C1">School of Public Policy</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Georgia
Institute of Technology<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Internet
Governance Project <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://internetgovernance.org/"><span
style="color:#0563C1">http://internetgovernance.org/</span></a>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
NCSG-Discuss [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kouami<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 23, 2016 11:31 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: ballots - history<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Dear Tapani<br>
Thank you for sharing these concerns/issues with us.<br>
It's clear that something nées to be harmonized at this
level.<br>
What are the others thinking ?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Le 23 août 2016 02:49, "Tapani Tarvainen"
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info">ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info</a>>
a écrit :<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all,<br>
<br>
As I've been accused of abruptly changing claimed
long-established<br>
precedent in the treatment of NOTA, I looked at how it's
been done<br>
in past NCSG elections since 2011.<br>
<br>
The only case where I found the impact of NOTA explicitly
addressed<br>
by the Chair running the election was in 2011. Chair then
was Avri<br>
Doria and she put it like this:<br>
<br>
"In the case of the g-council vote, the decision is to pick
the top 4<br>
people. So if 'none of the above' comes in in any of the top
4 places,<br>
I suggest that it just gets skipped and the top 4 vote
getters become<br>
the g-council representative. It is just that those who got
fewer<br>
votes than none of the above, will have a clue about how
hard they<br>
will have to work in order to represent the membership."<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1110&L=ncsg-discuss&D=0&P=115980"
target="_blank">http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1110&L=ncsg-discuss&D=0&P=115980</a><br>
<br>
In 2012 the ballot, run by Robin, was organized differently:<br>
candidates were explicitly selected by region, with separate
NOTA for<br>
each. No explanation seems to have been offered as to what
NOTA means.<br>
(I can't now find the ballot in the web, only in my personal
mail<br>
archive.)<br>
<br>
In 2013 ballot was again run by Robin, this time with
similar style as<br>
today with a common pool of council candidates, but there
was no NOTA<br>
option at all.<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A3=ind1310&L=NCSG-DISCUSS&E=base64&P=1735682&B=--Apple-Mail%3D_BE8CECBD-76B4-4895-954A-1A242E2FEF7E&T=application%2Fpdf;%20name=%22NCSG%20Election%20results%20October%202013.pdf%22&N=NCSG%20Election%20results%20October%202013.pdf&XSS=3"
target="_blank">http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A3=ind1310&L=NCSG-DISCUSS&E=base64&P=1735682&B=--Apple-Mail%3D_BE8CECBD-76B4-4895-954A-1A242E2FEF7E&T=application%2Fpdf;%20name=%22NCSG%20Election%20results%20October%202013.pdf%22&N=NCSG%20Election%20results%20October%202013.pdf&XSS=3</a><br>
<br>
In 2014, run by Rafik, there was one common NOTA for all
council<br>
candidates, but no mention of it in the instructions.<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1409&L=ncsg-discuss&F=&S=&X=31BCBB9C87C143B93B&P=1055"
target="_blank">http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1409&L=ncsg-discuss&F=&S=&X=31BCBB9C87C143B93B&P=1055</a><br>
<br>
In 2015, again by Rafik, similar to 2014, except this time
NOTA was<br>
mentioned in his instructions - but without any explanation
as to how<br>
it would be treated, only stating that 'In each list (Chair,
GNSO<br>
councillors), you will also find the "none of the above"
option.'<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1509&L=ncsg-discuss&F=&S=&X=24E79EEDA4AE17FE9E&P=5880"
target="_blank">http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1509&L=ncsg-discuss&F=&S=&X=24E79EEDA4AE17FE9E&P=5880</a><br>
<br>
Absent explicit instructions to the contrary I took "None of
the Above"<br>
literally: that you don't want to vote any of the candidates
listed above.<br>
<br>
So, out of five past elections, in one it was explicitly
stated NOTA<br>
victory would not actually impact councillor election, in
one case<br>
there was no NOTA option, one was different enough from
current that<br>
it's not really useful as a precedent, and in the remaining
two<br>
there was no explanation of what a NOTA vote or NOTA victory
would mean.<br>
<br>
Given such variance in past practices I don't see the
present one<br>
as a radical departure from any established process.<br>
<br>
I do accept the chastisement of not having established the
process<br>
properly, however, and pledge to do so before the next
election,<br>
if I remain the Chair.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Tapani Tarvainen<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>