<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>Paul,</p>
<p>The motivation for the appeal was primarily about process, from
the get-go (it's not that likely that NotA will actually have a
practical effect in this election, though certainly not
impossible). The EC-suggested changes include some that are
indeed substantive with respect to process (administrative
process, not electoral process), and would set a historical
precedent that would influence similar situations in the future,
since this is the first time such an appeal has been lodged. It
is important for the EC to explicitly acknowledge that there was a
compromise (appellants did not get everything we asked for) and
that the appeal was settled, not withdrawn. Why should the EC
object to such a characterization? It is an accurate one, and
should be a clear part of the historical record.<br>
</p>
<p>This is all about the working relationship between the EC and
members at large when a dispute arises, and details such as this
are important to get right at the outset. As an original signer
of the appeal, I approve of getting this worked out explicitly,
and not just letting it slide. If we're "making sausage" here,
then let's put it on the record without any whitewash!<br>
</p>
<p>Dan<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/29/16 5:57 AM, Paul Rosenzweig
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:00ba01d201f4$d78f5ab0$86ae1010$@redbranchconsulting.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<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;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Courier New \;color\:black";}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:black;}
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;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:black;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
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;
color:black;}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle21
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@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:windowtext">Really?
That’s your best argument? That two ministerial changes in
the last paragraphs that have no effect on substance have
somehow “re-inflam[ed]” your mistrust. Exactly why? You
object to this compromise not being called a compromise and
not being asked if you are satisfied, as if you need
validation? That’s hardly grounds for mistrust. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">I
have no idea why one person on the EC suggested these
changes; I have no idea either why you are objecting. For
the most part they look like a fight over whether to use
“happy” or “glad” in a sentence – it seems some people are
just looking for a fight. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Here's
a thought: Since, substantively, the letter is exactly what
Tapani said it was going to be, how about we just let the EC
do its job?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Paul<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Paul
Rosenzweig<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"><span
style="color:#0563C1">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">O:
+1 (202) 547-0660<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">M:
+1 (202) 329-9650<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">VOIP:
+1 (202) 738-1739<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/"><span
style="color:#0563C1">www.redbranchconsulting.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">My
PGP Key: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/"><span
style="color:#0563C1">http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/</span></a>
</span><u><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#0563C1"><o:p></o:p></span></u></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><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;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
Mueller, Milton L [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:milton@gatech.edu">mailto:milton@gatech.edu</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, August 28, 2016 9:17 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Paul Rosenzweig
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@REDBRANCHCONSULTING.COM"><paul.rosenzweig@REDBRANCHCONSULTING.COM></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: EC response to the By Laws Section
2.4.2.1 Appeal on the election process<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Paul<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal">If there's no difference between the two
then why did the person who proposed the revision hold up
the entire process with it?<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal">Your comparison only focuses on the NOTA
paragraph and does not include the entire letter. There were
other changes. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal">I think what people were objecting to was
that the final 2 paragraphs of the revised version
eliminated all references to a compromise, and no longer
asked whether the appellant's felt that their appeal had
been satisfied. If those seemingly little changes are
slipped in one has to wonder what the person who proposed
them was thinking. Whoever proposed these changes did a
great job of re-inflaming the mistrust that fueled the
appeal to begin with. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div id="AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
Milton L Mueller <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Professor, School of Public Policy<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Georgia Institute of Technology<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
On Aug 28, 2016, at 17:15, Paul Rosenzweig <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@REDBRANCHCONSULTING.COM</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:windowtext">I’m glad everyone has so
much time on the weekend to nit-pick the process. Since
we are asking for clarification, I’d like to ask why
anyone on the EC sees any difference between the first
draft language below and the proposed revision? In
other words, since they obviously mean the exact same
thing, why is anyone in the EC concerned about either
draft which seem to me just clarifications of each
other?</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:windowtext">Paul</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:windowtext">FIRST DRAFT</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:windowtext">which means that with
respect to the election for</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:windowtext">GNSO Council, those
candidates who receive less votes than “None of the</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:windowtext">Above” (NOTA) on the ballot
shall not be elected to the GNSO Council in</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:windowtext">this year’s election. Any
candidate who ties with NOTA in number of votes</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:windowtext">is elected.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">SECOND
DRAFT</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:windowtext">In that</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:windowtext">meeting, we decided a
solution that addressed the nota votes to clarify for</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:windowtext">the community that
candidates *with less votes than nota lose, **and the*</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:windowtext">*s**ame number as nota is
enough to get in. **This solution **is to enable</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:windowtext">the current election to
continue and address the concerns in the Letter of</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier
New";color:windowtext">Appeal.*</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">Paul
Rosenzweig</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com"><span
style="color:#0563C1">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">O:
+1 (202) 547-0660</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">M:
+1 (202) 329-9650</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">VOIP:
+1 (202) 738-1739</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/"><span
style="color:#0563C1">www.redbranchconsulting.com</span></a></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">My
PGP Key: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/"><span
style="color:#0563C1">http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/</span></a>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext"> </span><o:p></o:p></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;color:windowtext">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:windowtext">
NCSG-Discuss [<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Tamir Israel<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, August 28, 2016 1:41 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: EC response to the By Laws
Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the election process</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Hi,<br>
<br>
Maybe someone from the exec committee can explain what (if
anything) was wrong with the text as here:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001133.html">http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001133.html</a><br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Tamir<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 8/27/2016 6:42 PM, Mueller, Milton
L wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I
read some of these messages and I am unable to
understand what is going on in EC. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I
was especially disturbed about this message from Joan
Kerr:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Â </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New
\;color\:black"">This is a great time to take a
break and review the agreement we had on the</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New
\;color\:black"">call. Perhaps then after
reflection, we can address the response directly</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Courier New
\;color\:black"">and concisely.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Â </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I
am sorry, but I don’t see this as a great time to
“take a break.â€</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"></span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">
I, and I think most of the SG, think this is the time
to finish what you started, and to realize that the
SG’s unity and the legitimacy and respect of the EC
will be eroded if you don’t. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Â </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">The
EC needs to issue a statement settling the appeal
immediately. The essence of the agreement was already
conveyed to the NCSG by Tapani. I cannot understand
why the EC is dithering over this. </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Â </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">--MM</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Â </span></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue
1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt">
<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"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Tatiana Tropina<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, August 27, 2016 6:27 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> EC response to the By Laws
Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the election process</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Â <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Dear all,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Â <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Last week EC seemed to
quickly resolve the Appeal on the election
process, that challenged the interpretation of
NOTA votes. As far as I remember, those who
signed the appeal were told that they would get
a timely response from the EC which would seal
this deal. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Â <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, up to now I have not
seen anything coming from the EC on the list on
this matter. I checked the public archives, and
I see that EC is still debating how to word it's
compromise. It worries me a bit because world is
moving on and we're going ahead with this
election. When I read the emails on the public
NCSG EC thread, I really wonder what's going on
and whether EC is trying to, pardon me for the
lame pun attempt, to compromise the compromise.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Â <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">As far as I understand,
yesterday EC almost agreed on sending the
response: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001133.html">http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001133.html</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Â <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, today the
temperature changed and I see that the text is
still debated and, frankly speaking, it does
look like what we agreed upon is still
considered as not being agreed:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Â <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001134.html">http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001134.html</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001140.html">http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001140.html</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Â <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I know that it's weekend, but
since I see that EC has been debating the things
today, may I kindly ask anyone from the EC
update us on what is actually happing with the
EC response to the appeal? I believe those who
signed the appeal didn't submit it with the
intent to wait till the end of elections, when
it will be too late.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Â <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks a lot!<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Warm regards<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Â <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Tatiana <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Â <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>