<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><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]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><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 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 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 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 [mailto:milton@gatech.edu] <br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, August 28, 2016 9:17 PM<br><b>To:</b> Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@REDBRANCHCONSULTING.COM><br><b>Cc:</b> NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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'> </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'> </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'> </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'> </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 name="_MailEndCompose"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> </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 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 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> <o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Dear all,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal> <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> <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> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>As far as I understand, yesterday EC almost agreed on sending the response: <a 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> <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> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a 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 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> <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> <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> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Tatiana <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div></blockquote></div></body></html>