From ncsg  Sun Aug  7 18:09:29 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2016 18:09:29 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Fwd: Status of Your IGF 2016 Workshop Proposal
Message-ID: <20160807150929.GH5262@tarvainen.info>

FYI see below. I will continue to work with Martin and Gangesh on
this, but if you have suggestions for additional panelists they would
be most welcome. (Note though that despite the comment we already had
two non-NCSG speakers listed.)

Tapani

----- Forwarded message from IGF <IGF at unog.ch> -----

Dear Mr. Tapani Tarvainen,

Thank you for submitting workshop proposal #189, ?Civil Society Experiences
from the IANA Transition Process?, to be considered for the 11th Annual IGF
Meeting to be held in  Guadalajara, Mexico.

The Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) has reviewed all submitted
workshop proposals. Following this review, we are pleased to inform you
that  your workshop proposal, ?Civil Society Experiences from the IANA
Transition Process?, was accepted for the IGF 2016 meeting.


Editing of proposals is re-enabled via this link and we kindly ask you to
further update your proposal with the following information by 2 September
2016:

1.  a complete list of the panellists, with as many ?confirmed? as
possible;
2.  an agenda of the workshop;


Furthermore, please find below the comments made by the MAG during
evaluation to help you further refine and update your proposal:

      <Proposal is well presented, addresses a very relevant issue, and
      brings a rich panel of experts. But all speakers come from the same
      ICANN stakeholder group, namely NCSG. Diversity of views would be
      required.


      This is an important perspective to bring in to some of the other
      workshops proposed for IANA Transition and ICANN accountability.>



Please note that failure to provide the aforementioned updates by the
indicated deadline of 2 September 2016 may result in a reallocation of your
workshop slot.

We thank you for your continued engagement in the IGF process and we look
forward to working together toward a successful 11th IGF. For further
information, please do not hesitate to contact us by email at IGF at unog.ch.


Best regards,

IGF Secretariat

----- End forwarded message -----



From ncsg  Mon Aug  8 08:47:53 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 08:47:53 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Next EC meeting
Message-ID: <20160808054753.GC4242@tarvainen.info>

Dear all,

Are you available for EC call on next Friday, the 12th?

Same time as last time, i.e., 1300 UTC.

Please confirm ASAP.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From Monika.Zalnieriute  Mon Aug  8 09:01:05 2016
From: Monika.Zalnieriute (Zalnieriute, Monika)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 06:01:05 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Next EC meeting
In-Reply-To: <20160808054753.GC4242@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160808054753.GC4242@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB5561ADA6E28BE8F0CA56B59F61B0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Dear All,


Yes, this Friday is good for me.


11 pm in Melbourne is quite late for me, so preferably an hour earlier (12 midday UTC) - but that's 06 am for Robin, so I imagine it must be too early for her. Unless she is somewhere else, but if not, then I could do 11 pm, but some other time arrangement next time would be better,


Best wishes,


Monika



----

Dr. Monika Zalnieriute



Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I

Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu I
Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org I
Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I zephiroplatform.org I
Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I cihr.eu I









________________________________
From: EC-NCSG <ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> on behalf of Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 5:47 AM
To: NCSG EC
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Next EC meeting

Dear all,

Are you available for EC call on next Friday, the 12th?

Same time as last time, i.e., 1300 UTC.

Please confirm ASAP.

--
Tapani Tarvainen

_______________________________________________
EC-NCSG mailing list
EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160808/05a50809/attachment.html>


From encantarg  Mon Aug  8 09:05:56 2016
From: encantarg (Form Notifications)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 06:05:56 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Application: Form submissions detected
Message-ID: <001a113eca66a10c8c053989354b@google.com>



<p><i>Form Notifications</i> (a Google Forms add-on) has detected that the  
form
titled <a  
href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uPzS7nxQkGgndirN8JM_E067DXz42uXWKcBClxAd4KY/edit"><b>  
NCSG Membership Application</b></a> has received
191 responses so far.</p>

<p><a  
href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cRLoUkoLC_Kelf7440HBGLxpaMThrRMrSuVrBWqM2bo/edit?usp=drivesdk">Response  
sheet</a></p>
<p><a  
href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uPzS7nxQkGgndirN8JM_E067DXz42uXWKcBClxAd4KY/viewanalytics">Summary  
of form responses</a></p>

<p>You are receiving this email because an editor of this form configured
<i>Form Notifications</i> to alert you every time this form receives
<b>1</b> responses.</p>

<p>To change this setting, or to stop receiving these notifications, have  
the
form owner or editors open the form and adjust the <i>Form Notifications</i>
add-on configuration via the "Configure notifications" menu item.</p>

<hr>

<p style="font-size:80%">This automatic message was sent to you via the  
<i>Form
Notifications</i> add-on for Google Forms.
Form Notifications was created as an sample add-on, and is meant for  
demonstration purposes only. It should not be used for complex or important  
workflows. The number of notifications this add-on produces are limited by  
the owner&#39;s available email quota; it will not send email notifications  
if the owner&#39;s daily email quota has been exceeded. Collaborators using  
this add-on on the same form will be able to adjust the notification  
settings, but will not be able to disable the notification triggers set by  
other collaborators.</p>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160808/b04032ef/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Mon Aug  8 10:38:52 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 10:38:52 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Next EC meeting
In-Reply-To: <20160808054753.GC4242@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160808054753.GC4242@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <20160808073852.GE25153@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>

Dear all,

It seems there may be some conflicts on the 12th
(uncertain yet).

So, could you please also check if Friday the 19th
(same time) would work for you?

Thank you,

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen

On Aug 08 08:47, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> Are you available for EC call on next Friday, the 12th?
> 
> Same time as last time, i.e., 1300 UTC.
> 
> Please confirm ASAP.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen




From Monika.Zalnieriute  Mon Aug  8 10:46:35 2016
From: Monika.Zalnieriute (Zalnieriute, Monika)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 07:46:35 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Next EC meeting
In-Reply-To: <20160808073852.GE25153@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
References: <20160808054753.GC4242@tarvainen.info>,
	<20160808073852.GE25153@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB55666368047E1BD7F08843AF61B0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Yes, 19th would work as well. Do we have DOODLE?



----

Dr. Monika Zalnieriute



Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I

Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu I
Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org I
Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I zephiroplatform.org I
Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I cihr.eu I









________________________________
From: EC-NCSG <ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> on behalf of Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2016 7:38 AM
To: ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] Next EC meeting

Dear all,

It seems there may be some conflicts on the 12th
(uncertain yet).

So, could you please also check if Friday the 19th
(same time) would work for you?

Thank you,

--
Tapani Tarvainen

On Aug 08 08:47, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Are you available for EC call on next Friday, the 12th?
>
> Same time as last time, i.e., 1300 UTC.
>
> Please confirm ASAP.
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen


_______________________________________________
EC-NCSG mailing list
EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160808/0ded7a37/attachment.html>


From joankerr  Mon Aug  8 16:26:47 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 09:26:47 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Next EC meeting
In-Reply-To: <20160808054753.GC4242@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160808054753.GC4242@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CADwmshL_p8OBnbkyEsV_ZQawcZB9iJE4dc+OAuMQsmSzV67nNw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Tapani, All

I am available both Friday 12th & 19th at 1300 UYC

Joan



On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Are you available for EC call on next Friday, the 12th?
>
> Same time as last time, i.e., 1300 UTC.
>
> Please confirm ASAP.
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160808/c7dc8a2e/attachment.html>


From pileleji  Mon Aug  8 16:50:07 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 13:50:07 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Next EC meeting
In-Reply-To: <CADwmshL_p8OBnbkyEsV_ZQawcZB9iJE4dc+OAuMQsmSzV67nNw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160808054753.GC4242@tarvainen.info>
	<CADwmshL_p8OBnbkyEsV_ZQawcZB9iJE4dc+OAuMQsmSzV67nNw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEux40sBmM-_ystGWfGGj3L2atvUUOnfq5O_wyGTTdrhyxZ+gQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Tapani,

The date and time is fine by me.

Kind Regards

On 8 August 2016 at 13:26, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:

> Hi Tapani, All
>
> I am available both Friday 12th & 19th at 1300 UYC
>
> Joan
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Are you available for EC call on next Friday, the 12th?
>>
>> Same time as last time, i.e., 1300 UTC.
>>
>> Please confirm ASAP.
>>
>> --
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
>


-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160808/350e5609/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Tue Aug  9 21:06:53 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 11:06:53 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Next EC meeting
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40sBmM-_ystGWfGGj3L2atvUUOnfq5O_wyGTTdrhyxZ+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160808054753.GC4242@tarvainen.info>
	<CADwmshL_p8OBnbkyEsV_ZQawcZB9iJE4dc+OAuMQsmSzV67nNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40sBmM-_ystGWfGGj3L2atvUUOnfq5O_wyGTTdrhyxZ+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CB968F0-D584-4EAC-96AE-1EEE5B89C89B@ipjustice.org>

Works for me too.  Thanks!

Best,
Robin

> On Aug 8, 2016, at 6:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
> 
> Hello Tapani,
> 
> The date and time is fine by me.
> 
> Kind Regards
> 
> On 8 August 2016 at 13:26, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
> Hi Tapani, All
> 
> I am available both Friday 12th & 19th at 1300 UYC
> 
> Joan
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> Are you available for EC call on next Friday, the 12th?
> 
> Same time as last time, i.e., 1300 UTC.
> 
> Please confirm ASAP.
> 
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160809/21de1337/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Tue Aug  9 21:34:00 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 21:34:00 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Next EC meeting
In-Reply-To: <4CB968F0-D584-4EAC-96AE-1EEE5B89C89B@ipjustice.org>
References: <20160808054753.GC4242@tarvainen.info>
	<CADwmshL_p8OBnbkyEsV_ZQawcZB9iJE4dc+OAuMQsmSzV67nNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40sBmM-_ystGWfGGj3L2atvUUOnfq5O_wyGTTdrhyxZ+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CB968F0-D584-4EAC-96AE-1EEE5B89C89B@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20160809183400.GA19208@tarvainen.info>

If I get it right, August 19th at 1300 UTC works for all,
so let's do it then.

Maryam is on vacation this week so you won't get the usual calendar
invitation yet, but I trust you can mark your calendars manually, too. :-)

Tapani

On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 11:06:53AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:

> Works for me too.  Thanks!
> 
> Best,
> Robin
> 
> > On Aug 8, 2016, at 6:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
> > 
> > Hello Tapani,
> > 
> > The date and time is fine by me.
> > 
> > Kind Regards
> > 
> > On 8 August 2016 at 13:26, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
> > Hi Tapani, All
> > 
> > I am available both Friday 12th & 19th at 1300 UYC
> > 
> > Joan
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > Are you available for EC call on next Friday, the 12th?
> > 
> > Same time as last time, i.e., 1300 UTC.
> > 
> > Please confirm ASAP.
> > 
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > EC-NCSG mailing list
> > EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > EC-NCSG mailing list
> > EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> > Coordinator
> > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> > MDI Road Kanifing South
> > P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> > The Gambia, West Africa
> > Tel: (220) 4370240
> > Fax:(220) 4390793
> > Cell:(220) 9912508
> > Skype: pons_utd
> > www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
> > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
> > www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
> > www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
> > www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
> > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
> > www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>



From encantarg  Thu Aug 11 16:43:56 2016
From: encantarg (Form Notifications)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 13:43:56 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Application: Form submissions detected
Message-ID: <047d7b6dc13e1691940539cbf570@google.com>



<p><i>Form Notifications</i> (a Google Forms add-on) has detected that the  
form
titled <a  
href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uPzS7nxQkGgndirN8JM_E067DXz42uXWKcBClxAd4KY/edit"><b>  
NCSG Membership Application</b></a> has received
192 responses so far.</p>

<p><a  
href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cRLoUkoLC_Kelf7440HBGLxpaMThrRMrSuVrBWqM2bo/edit?usp=drivesdk">Response  
sheet</a></p>
<p><a  
href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uPzS7nxQkGgndirN8JM_E067DXz42uXWKcBClxAd4KY/viewanalytics">Summary  
of form responses</a></p>

<p>You are receiving this email because an editor of this form configured
<i>Form Notifications</i> to alert you every time this form receives
<b>1</b> responses.</p>

<p>To change this setting, or to stop receiving these notifications, have  
the
form owner or editors open the form and adjust the <i>Form Notifications</i>
add-on configuration via the "Configure notifications" menu item.</p>

<hr>

<p style="font-size:80%">This automatic message was sent to you via the  
<i>Form
Notifications</i> add-on for Google Forms.
Form Notifications was created as an sample add-on, and is meant for  
demonstration purposes only. It should not be used for complex or important  
workflows. The number of notifications this add-on produces are limited by  
the owner&#39;s available email quota; it will not send email notifications  
if the owner&#39;s daily email quota has been exceeded. Collaborators using  
this add-on on the same form will be able to adjust the notification  
settings, but will not be able to disable the notification triggers set by  
other collaborators.</p>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160811/e1504347/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Fri Aug 12 10:46:19 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 10:46:19 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Next EC meeting
In-Reply-To: <20160809183400.GA19208@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160808054753.GC4242@tarvainen.info>
	<CADwmshL_p8OBnbkyEsV_ZQawcZB9iJE4dc+OAuMQsmSzV67nNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40sBmM-_ystGWfGGj3L2atvUUOnfq5O_wyGTTdrhyxZ+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CB968F0-D584-4EAC-96AE-1EEE5B89C89B@ipjustice.org>
	<20160809183400.GA19208@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <20160812074619.GD20812@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>

Tentative agenda - let me know if you have other issues in mind:

* new member applications
* procedures for removing members
* Hyderabad preparation
* planning constituency reviews

On Aug 09 21:34, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:

> If I get it right, August 19th at 1300 UTC works for all,
> so let's do it then.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen




From joankerr  Fri Aug 12 14:47:36 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 07:47:36 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Next EC meeting
In-Reply-To: <20160809183400.GA19208@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160808054753.GC4242@tarvainen.info>
	<CADwmshL_p8OBnbkyEsV_ZQawcZB9iJE4dc+OAuMQsmSzV67nNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40sBmM-_ystGWfGGj3L2atvUUOnfq5O_wyGTTdrhyxZ+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CB968F0-D584-4EAC-96AE-1EEE5B89C89B@ipjustice.org>
	<20160809183400.GA19208@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CADwmsh+6LkMM08uJMkVxvuvYb=OzMOrrR0Oxf7LeuZ7fEQe=bA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Tapani,

Yes, I have marked my calendar for August 19th
Joan

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info
> wrote:

> If I get it right, August 19th at 1300 UTC works for all,
> so let's do it then.
>
> Maryam is on vacation this week so you won't get the usual calendar
> invitation yet, but I trust you can mark your calendars manually, too. :-)
>
> Tapani
>
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 11:06:53AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org)
> wrote:
>
> > Works for me too.  Thanks!
> >
> > Best,
> > Robin
> >
> > > On Aug 8, 2016, at 6:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Tapani,
> > >
> > > The date and time is fine by me.
> > >
> > > Kind Regards
> > >
> > > On 8 August 2016 at 13:26, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:
> joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
> > > Hi Tapani, All
> > >
> > > I am available both Friday 12th & 19th at 1300 UYC
> > >
> > > Joan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
> > > Dear all,
> > >
> > > Are you available for EC call on next Friday, the 12th?
> > >
> > > Same time as last time, i.e., 1300 UTC.
> > >
> > > Please confirm ASAP.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tapani Tarvainen
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > EC-NCSG mailing list
> > > EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > EC-NCSG mailing list
> > > EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> > > Coordinator
> > > The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> > > MDI Road Kanifing South
> > > P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> > > The Gambia, West Africa
> > > Tel: (220) 4370240
> > > Fax:(220) 4390793
> > > Cell:(220) 9912508
> > > Skype: pons_utd
> > > www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
> > > http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
> > > www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
> > > www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
> > > www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
> > > http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> >
> > > www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.
> diplointernetgovernance.org/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160812/7641ac24/attachment.html>


From robin  Fri Aug 12 18:15:51 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 08:15:51 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Next EC meeting
In-Reply-To: <20160812074619.GD20812@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
References: <20160808054753.GC4242@tarvainen.info>
	<CADwmshL_p8OBnbkyEsV_ZQawcZB9iJE4dc+OAuMQsmSzV67nNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40sBmM-_ystGWfGGj3L2atvUUOnfq5O_wyGTTdrhyxZ+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CB968F0-D584-4EAC-96AE-1EEE5B89C89B@ipjustice.org>
	<20160809183400.GA19208@tarvainen.info>
	<20160812074619.GD20812@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <3D79F686-467D-4FA9-ADF6-3714A02EBD07@ipjustice.org>

Thanks, Tapani.  Another item to suggest adding to agenda: In line with the SO-AC accountability reforms in CCWG, we also need to consider provisions for removing elected representatives for unaccountability or otherwise.  I think we only dealt with the chair?s removal in the NCSG charter and forgot about the other elected representatives.

Best,
Robin


> On Aug 12, 2016, at 12:46 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> Tentative agenda - let me know if you have other issues in mind:
> 
> * new member applications
> * procedures for removing members
> * Hyderabad preparation
> * planning constituency reviews
> 
> On Aug 09 21:34, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
> 
>> If I get it right, August 19th at 1300 UTC works for all,
>> so let's do it then.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
> 




From ncsg  Fri Aug 12 19:19:48 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 19:19:48 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Next EC meeting
In-Reply-To: <3D79F686-467D-4FA9-ADF6-3714A02EBD07@ipjustice.org>
References: <20160808054753.GC4242@tarvainen.info>
	<CADwmshL_p8OBnbkyEsV_ZQawcZB9iJE4dc+OAuMQsmSzV67nNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40sBmM-_ystGWfGGj3L2atvUUOnfq5O_wyGTTdrhyxZ+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CB968F0-D584-4EAC-96AE-1EEE5B89C89B@ipjustice.org>
	<20160809183400.GA19208@tarvainen.info>
	<20160812074619.GD20812@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
	<3D79F686-467D-4FA9-ADF6-3714A02EBD07@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20160812161948.GA14140@tarvainen.info>

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 08:15:51AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:

> Another item to suggest adding to agenda: In line with the SO-AC
> accountability reforms in CCWG, we also need to consider provisions
> for removing elected representatives for unaccountability or
> otherwise. I think we only dealt with the chair?s removal in the
> NCSG charter and forgot about the other elected representatives.

Good point. In particular, there is no way to remove Councillors
midterm against their will. Changing that would require changing
the Charter, I think, so it will be a bit longer process.

At least most other cases are covered at least implicitly by current
charter; e.g., EC members other than Chair are representatives of
constituencies who can replace their representatives by their own
rules, likewise FC &c. It might be a good idea to review all cases to
make sure there are no gaps, however.

But what I now had in mind here was establishing procedural rules for
membership removal, as per section 2.2.6 of our charter.
That we can do without charter changes and it should not be
all that difficult, either.

We would need to consider different reasons for removing members,
including their ceasing to exist (organisations) or dying (people),
becoming ineligible for membership, &c.

I would also like to propose for discussion whether we should remove
members who've been inactive long enough. E.g., if we've not been
able to contact someone for five years it might be time to remove
them from member list.

I don't intend to have a ready procedure written by next week,
but if we can discuss and agree on the principles it should
not take too long to write it up.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From joankerr  Mon Aug 15 23:18:06 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 16:18:06 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] GNSO Nomination
Message-ID: <CADwmshJX7ci3Wy8FyfHVTZ9boGK1h81wf_tYeiPcJMAeOzJsCg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Everyone,

I am extremely grateful to Martin Silva Valent and Klaus Stoll for
nominating me as a GNSO Councillor. I want to thank everyone for the kind
words of support for the nomination.

In retrospect, after lots of discussions, the work involved and experience
needed, I have decided to withdraw from the GNSO nomination process.

Thanks again for all the support and congratulations to all nominees. I
look forward to working with you.

Regards,

Joan Kerr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160815/f459d8ef/attachment.html>


From maryam.bakoshi  Tue Aug 16 00:59:21 2016
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 21:59:21 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG ExCom call on Friday, 19 August 2016 at 13:00 UTC
Message-ID: <72ba0305303241adab883bf1da59863f@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>

Dear All,


Please find below participation details for the NCSG ExCom call on Friday, 19 August 2016 at 13:00 UTC


Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/


Full list of Time Zones: http://tinyurl.com/gpfyuso


Time in some other locations:


Sydney: Friday, 19 August 2016, 23:00
Tokyo: Friday, 19 August 2016, 22:00
Beijing: Friday, 19 August 2016, 21:00
Moscow: Friday, 19 August 2016, 16:00
New Delhi: Friday, 19 August 2016, 18:30
Paris: Friday, 19 August 2016, 15:00
London: Friday, 19 August 2016, 14:00
Buenos Aires: Friday, 19 August 2016, 10:00
New York: Friday, 19 August 2016, 09:00
Los Angeles: Friday, 19 August 2016, 06:00


Agenda: TBC


Passcodes/Pin codes:
Participant passcode: NCSG EC

For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference.

Dial in numbers:
Country         Toll Numbers    Freephone/
Toll Free Number


ARGENTINA                       0800-777-0519<tel:0800-777-0519>
AUSTRALIA       ADELAIDE:       61-8-8121-4842  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       BRISBANE:       61-7-3102-0944  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       CANBERRA:       61-2-6100-1944  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       MELBOURNE:      61-3-9010-7713  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       PERTH:  61-8-9467-5223  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129  1-800-657-260
AUSTRIA         43-1-92-81-113  0800-005-259
BELGIUM         32-2-400-9861   0800-3-8795
BRAZIL                  0800-7610651<tel:0800-7610651>
CHILE                   1230-020-2863
CHINA   CHINA A:        86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670
CHINA   CHINA B:        86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670
COLOMBIA                        01800-9-156474
CZECH REPUBLIC          420-2-25-98-56-64       800-700-177
DENMARK         45-7014-0284    8088-8324
ESTONIA                 800-011-1093
FINLAND         358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610
FRANCE  LYON:   33-4-26-69-12-85        080-511-1496
FRANCE  MARSEILLE:      33-4-86-06-00-85        080-511-1496
FRANCE  PARIS:  33-1-70-70-60-72        080-511-1496
GERMANY         49-69-2222-20362        0800-664-4247<tel:0800-664-4247>
GREECE          30-80-1-100-0687        00800-12-7312
HONG KONG               852-3001-3863   800-962-856
HUNGARY                 06-800-12755
INDIA   INDIA A:                000-800-852-1268
INDIA   INDIA B:                000-800-001-6305
INDIA   INDIA C:                1800-300-00491
INDONESIA                       001-803-011-3982
IRELAND         353-1-246-7646  1800-992-368
ISRAEL                  1-80-9216162
ITALY   MILAN:  39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383
JAPAN   OSAKA:  81-6-7739-4799<tel:81-6-7739-4799>      0066-33-132439
JAPAN   TOKYO:  81-3-5539-5191<tel:81-3-5539-5191>      0066-33-132439
LATVIA                  8000-3185
LUXEMBOURG              352-27-000-1364
MALAYSIA                        1-800-81-3065
MEXICO                  001-866-376-9696
NETHERLANDS             31-20-718-8588  0800-023-4378<tel:0800-023-4378>
NEW ZEALAND             64-9-970-4771   0800-447-722
NORWAY          47-21-590-062   800-15157
PANAMA                  011-001-800-5072065
PERU                    0800-53713
PHILIPPINES             63-2-858-3716
POLAND                  00-800-1212572
PORTUGAL                        8008-14052
RUSSIA                  8-10-8002-0144011
SAUDI ARABIA                    800-8-110087
SINGAPORE               65-6883-9230    800-120-4663
SLOVAK REPUBLIC         421-2-322-422-25
SOUTH AFRICA                    080-09-80414
SOUTH KOREA             82-2-6744-1083  00798-14800-7352
SPAIN           34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053
SWEDEN          46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622
SWITZERLAND             41-44-580-6398  0800-120-032
TAIWAN          886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797
THAILAND                        001-800-1206-66056
UNITED KINGDOM  BIRMINGHAM:     44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  GLASGOW:        44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  LEEDS:  44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  MANCHESTER:     44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029
URUGUAY                 000-413-598-3421
USA             1-517-345-9004  866-692-5726
VENEZUELA                       0800-1-00-3702


Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.


Many thanks,
--
Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)


Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile: +44 7737 698036
Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160815/ca1aa7db/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/calendar
Size: 6248 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160815/ca1aa7db/attachment-0001.ics>


From maryam.bakoshi  Tue Aug 16 00:59:29 2016
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 21:59:29 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Canceled: NCSG ExCom call on Friday,
	19 August 2016 at 13:00 UTC
Message-ID: <53f1263bab86411ea3c021f88fffd49a@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>

Dear All,

Please find below participation details for the NCSG ExCom call on Friday, 19 August 2016 at 13:00 UTC

Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/

Full list of Time Zones: http://tinyurl.com/gpfyuso

Time in some other locations:

Sydney: Friday, 19 August 2016, 23:00
Tokyo: Friday, 19 August 2016, 22:00
Beijing: Friday, 19 August 2016, 21:00
Moscow: Friday, 19 August 2016, 16:00
New Delhi: Friday, 19 August 2016, 18:30
Paris: Friday, 19 August 2016, 15:00
London: Friday, 19 August 2016, 14:00
Buenos Aires: Friday, 19 August 2016, 10:00
New York: Friday, 19 August 2016, 09:00
Los Angeles: Friday, 19 August 2016, 06:00

Agenda: TBC

Passcodes/Pin codes:
Participant passcode: NCSG EC


For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference.



Dial in numbers:
Country


Toll Numbers

Freephone/
Toll Free Number




ARGENTINA




0800-777-0519<tel:0800-777-0519>


AUSTRALIA


ADELAIDE:


61-8-8121-4842


1-800-657-260


AUSTRALIA


BRISBANE:


61-7-3102-0944


1-800-657-260


AUSTRALIA


CANBERRA:


61-2-6100-1944


1-800-657-260


AUSTRALIA


MELBOURNE:


61-3-9010-7713


1-800-657-260


AUSTRALIA


PERTH:


61-8-9467-5223


1-800-657-260


AUSTRALIA


SYDNEY:


61-2-8205-8129


1-800-657-260


AUSTRIA



43-1-92-81-113


0800-005-259


BELGIUM



32-2-400-9861


0800-3-8795


BRAZIL




0800-7610651<tel:0800-7610651>


CHILE




1230-020-2863


CHINA


CHINA A:


86-400-810-4789


10800-712-1670


CHINA


CHINA B:


86-400-810-4789


10800-120-1670


COLOMBIA




01800-9-156474


CZECH REPUBLIC



420-2-25-98-56-64


800-700-177


DENMARK



45-7014-0284


8088-8324


ESTONIA




800-011-1093


FINLAND



358-9-5424-7162


0-800-9-14610


FRANCE


LYON:


33-4-26-69-12-85


080-511-1496


FRANCE


MARSEILLE:


33-4-86-06-00-85


080-511-1496


FRANCE


PARIS:


33-1-70-70-60-72


080-511-1496


GERMANY



49-69-2222-20362


0800-664-4247<tel:0800-664-4247>


GREECE



30-80-1-100-0687


00800-12-7312


HONG KONG



852-3001-3863


800-962-856


HUNGARY




06-800-12755


INDIA


INDIA A:



000-800-852-1268


INDIA


INDIA B:



000-800-001-6305


INDIA


INDIA C:



1800-300-00491


INDONESIA




001-803-011-3982


IRELAND



353-1-246-7646


1800-992-368


ISRAEL




1-80-9216162


ITALY


MILAN:


39-02-3600-6007


800-986-383


JAPAN


OSAKA:


81-6-7739-4799<tel:81-6-7739-4799>


0066-33-132439


JAPAN


TOKYO:


81-3-5539-5191<tel:81-3-5539-5191>


0066-33-132439


LATVIA




8000-3185


LUXEMBOURG



352-27-000-1364


MALAYSIA




1-800-81-3065


MEXICO




001-866-376-9696


NETHERLANDS



31-20-718-8588


0800-023-4378<tel:0800-023-4378>


NEW ZEALAND



64-9-970-4771


0800-447-722


NORWAY



47-21-590-062


800-15157


PANAMA




011-001-800-5072065


PERU




0800-53713


PHILIPPINES



63-2-858-3716


POLAND




00-800-1212572


PORTUGAL




8008-14052


RUSSIA




8-10-8002-0144011


SAUDI ARABIA




800-8-110087


SINGAPORE



65-6883-9230


800-120-4663


SLOVAK REPUBLIC



421-2-322-422-25


SOUTH AFRICA




080-09-80414


SOUTH KOREA



82-2-6744-1083


00798-14800-7352


SPAIN



34-91-414-25-33


800-300-053


SWEDEN



46-8-566-19-348


0200-884-622


SWITZERLAND



41-44-580-6398


0800-120-032


TAIWAN



886-2-2795-7379


00801-137-797


THAILAND




001-800-1206-66056


UNITED KINGDOM


BIRMINGHAM:


44-121-210-9025


0808-238-6029


UNITED KINGDOM


GLASGOW:


44-141-202-3225


0808-238-6029


UNITED KINGDOM


LEEDS:


44-113-301-2125


0808-238-6029


UNITED KINGDOM


LONDON:


44-20-7108-6370


0808-238-6029


UNITED KINGDOM


MANCHESTER:


44-161-601-1425


0808-238-6029


URUGUAY




000-413-598-3421


USA



1-517-345-9004


866-692-5726


VENEZUELA




0800-1-00-3702


Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.

Many thanks,
--
Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile: +44 7737 698036
Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160815/5f20a26e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/calendar
Size: 6297 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160815/5f20a26e/attachment-0001.ics>


From maryam.bakoshi  Tue Aug 16 01:01:34 2016
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 22:01:34 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG ExCom call on Friday, 19 August 2016 at 13:00 UTC
Message-ID: <808174b8d52b44dba72f19bd712455c8@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>

Dear All,


Please find below participation details for the NCSG ExCom call on Friday, 19 August 2016 at 13:00 UTC


Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/


Full list of Time Zones: http://tinyurl.com/gpfyuso


Time in some other locations:


Sydney: Friday, 19 August 2016, 23:00
Tokyo: Friday, 19 August 2016, 22:00
Beijing: Friday, 19 August 2016, 21:00
Moscow: Friday, 19 August 2016, 16:00
New Delhi: Friday, 19 August 2016, 18:30
Paris: Friday, 19 August 2016, 15:00
London: Friday, 19 August 2016, 14:00
Buenos Aires: Friday, 19 August 2016, 10:00
New York: Friday, 19 August 2016, 09:00
Los Angeles: Friday, 19 August 2016, 06:00


Agenda: TBC


Passcodes/Pin codes:
Participant passcode: NCSG EC

For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference.

Dial in numbers:
Country         Toll Numbers    Freephone/
Toll Free Number


ARGENTINA                       0800-777-0519<tel:0800-777-0519>
AUSTRALIA       ADELAIDE:       61-8-8121-4842  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       BRISBANE:       61-7-3102-0944  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       CANBERRA:       61-2-6100-1944  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       MELBOURNE:      61-3-9010-7713  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       PERTH:  61-8-9467-5223  1-800-657-260
AUSTRALIA       SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129  1-800-657-260
AUSTRIA         43-1-92-81-113  0800-005-259
BELGIUM         32-2-400-9861   0800-3-8795
BRAZIL                  0800-7610651<tel:0800-7610651>
CHILE                   1230-020-2863
CHINA   CHINA A:        86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670
CHINA   CHINA B:        86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670
COLOMBIA                        01800-9-156474
CZECH REPUBLIC          420-2-25-98-56-64       800-700-177
DENMARK         45-7014-0284    8088-8324
ESTONIA                 800-011-1093
FINLAND         358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610
FRANCE  LYON:   33-4-26-69-12-85        080-511-1496
FRANCE  MARSEILLE:      33-4-86-06-00-85        080-511-1496
FRANCE  PARIS:  33-1-70-70-60-72        080-511-1496
GERMANY         49-69-2222-20362        0800-664-4247<tel:0800-664-4247>
GREECE          30-80-1-100-0687        00800-12-7312
HONG KONG               852-3001-3863   800-962-856
HUNGARY                 06-800-12755
INDIA   INDIA A:                000-800-852-1268
INDIA   INDIA B:                000-800-001-6305
INDIA   INDIA C:                1800-300-00491
INDONESIA                       001-803-011-3982
IRELAND         353-1-246-7646  1800-992-368
ISRAEL                  1-80-9216162
ITALY   MILAN:  39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383
JAPAN   OSAKA:  81-6-7739-4799<tel:81-6-7739-4799>      0066-33-132439
JAPAN   TOKYO:  81-3-5539-5191<tel:81-3-5539-5191>      0066-33-132439
LATVIA                  8000-3185
LUXEMBOURG              352-27-000-1364
MALAYSIA                        1-800-81-3065
MEXICO                  001-866-376-9696
NETHERLANDS             31-20-718-8588  0800-023-4378<tel:0800-023-4378>
NEW ZEALAND             64-9-970-4771   0800-447-722
NORWAY          47-21-590-062   800-15157
PANAMA                  011-001-800-5072065
PERU                    0800-53713
PHILIPPINES             63-2-858-3716
POLAND                  00-800-1212572
PORTUGAL                        8008-14052
RUSSIA                  8-10-8002-0144011
SAUDI ARABIA                    800-8-110087
SINGAPORE               65-6883-9230    800-120-4663
SLOVAK REPUBLIC         421-2-322-422-25
SOUTH AFRICA                    080-09-80414
SOUTH KOREA             82-2-6744-1083  00798-14800-7352
SPAIN           34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053
SWEDEN          46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622
SWITZERLAND             41-44-580-6398  0800-120-032
TAIWAN          886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797
THAILAND                        001-800-1206-66056
UNITED KINGDOM  BIRMINGHAM:     44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  GLASGOW:        44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  LEEDS:  44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029
UNITED KINGDOM  MANCHESTER:     44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029
URUGUAY                 000-413-598-3421
USA             1-517-345-9004  866-692-5726
VENEZUELA                       0800-1-00-3702


Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.


Many thanks,
--
Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)


Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Mobile: +44 7737 698036
Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann
_______________________________________________ EC-NCSG mailing list EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160815/531752ca/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/calendar
Size: 6425 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160815/531752ca/attachment-0001.ics>


From encantarg  Thu Aug 18 11:24:55 2016
From: encantarg (Form Notifications)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:24:55 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Application: Form submissions detected
Message-ID: <001a11421f5a10d88b053a54518b@google.com>



<p><i>Form Notifications</i> (a Google Forms add-on) has detected that the  
form
titled <a  
href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uPzS7nxQkGgndirN8JM_E067DXz42uXWKcBClxAd4KY/edit"><b>  
NCSG Membership Application</b></a> has received
193 responses so far.</p>

<p><a  
href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cRLoUkoLC_Kelf7440HBGLxpaMThrRMrSuVrBWqM2bo/edit?usp=drivesdk">Response  
sheet</a></p>
<p><a  
href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uPzS7nxQkGgndirN8JM_E067DXz42uXWKcBClxAd4KY/viewanalytics">Summary  
of form responses</a></p>

<p>You are receiving this email because an editor of this form configured
<i>Form Notifications</i> to alert you every time this form receives
<b>1</b> responses.</p>

<p>To change this setting, or to stop receiving these notifications, have  
the
form owner or editors open the form and adjust the <i>Form Notifications</i>
add-on configuration via the "Configure notifications" menu item.</p>

<hr>

<p style="font-size:80%">This automatic message was sent to you via the  
<i>Form
Notifications</i> add-on for Google Forms.
Form Notifications was created as an sample add-on, and is meant for  
demonstration purposes only. It should not be used for complex or important  
workflows. The number of notifications this add-on produces are limited by  
the owner&#39;s available email quota; it will not send email notifications  
if the owner&#39;s daily email quota has been exceeded. Collaborators using  
this add-on on the same form will be able to adjust the notification  
settings, but will not be able to disable the notification triggers set by  
other collaborators.</p>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160818/7a8ac282/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Fri Aug 19 07:45:24 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 07:45:24 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] EC meeting today - agenda
In-Reply-To: <20160812074619.GD20812@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
References: <20160808054753.GC4242@tarvainen.info>
	<CADwmshL_p8OBnbkyEsV_ZQawcZB9iJE4dc+OAuMQsmSzV67nNw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40sBmM-_ystGWfGGj3L2atvUUOnfq5O_wyGTTdrhyxZ+gQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4CB968F0-D584-4EAC-96AE-1EEE5B89C89B@ipjustice.org>
	<20160809183400.GA19208@tarvainen.info>
	<20160812074619.GD20812@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <20160819044524.GA30706@tarvainen.info>

Dear EC members,

Here's updated agenda for today's call:

* New member applications

* Vice Chair
  (a) definition of Vice Chair's role, tentative proposal:
      "The Vice Chair shall assist the Chair, as designated by the chair,
      in fulfilling his or her functions under the NCSG Charter."
  (b) if (a) is agreed on, election of the Vice Chair.

* Procedures for removing members
  Creation of procedural rules as per 2.2.6 of our charter.
  Discussion and planning, no decision proposed.

* Hyderabad preparation
  What meetings do we want for NCSG and where in the schedule
  we'd like to have them.

* Planning constituency reviews
  Tentative schedule, discussion of processes.

* Planning charter revision
  Discussion and planning only.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From maryam.bakoshi  Fri Aug 19 12:48:55 2016
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:48:55 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] **Reminder**NCSG ExCom call on Friday,
	19 August 2016 at 13:00 UTC
Message-ID: <F5E5FA96-5048-441D-BD27-B76C2B2D1D32@icann.org>

Dear All,





**Reminder for call today**

Please find below participation details for the NCSG ExCom call on Friday, 19 August 2016 at 13:00 UTC





Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/





Full list of Time Zones: http://tinyurl.com/gpfyuso





Time in some other locations:





Sydney: Friday, 19 August 2016, 23:00

Tokyo: Friday, 19 August 2016, 22:00

Beijing: Friday, 19 August 2016, 21:00

Moscow: Friday, 19 August 2016, 16:00

New Delhi: Friday, 19 August 2016, 18:30

Paris: Friday, 19 August 2016, 15:00

London: Friday, 19 August 2016, 14:00

Buenos Aires: Friday, 19 August 2016, 10:00

New York: Friday, 19 August 2016, 09:00

Los Angeles: Friday, 19 August 2016, 06:00





Agenda: TBC





Passcodes/Pin codes:

Participant passcode: NCSG EC



For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference.



Dial in numbers:

Country         Toll Numbers    Freephone/

Toll Free Number





ARGENTINA                       0800-777-0519<tel:0800-777-0519>

AUSTRALIA       ADELAIDE:       61-8-8121-4842  1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA       BRISBANE:       61-7-3102-0944  1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA       CANBERRA:       61-2-6100-1944  1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA       MELBOURNE:      61-3-9010-7713  1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA       PERTH:  61-8-9467-5223  1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA       SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129  1-800-657-260

AUSTRIA         43-1-92-81-113  0800-005-259

BELGIUM         32-2-400-9861   0800-3-8795

BRAZIL                  0800-7610651<tel:0800-7610651>

CHILE                   1230-020-2863

CHINA   CHINA A:        86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670

CHINA   CHINA B:        86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670

COLOMBIA                        01800-9-156474

CZECH REPUBLIC          420-2-25-98-56-64       800-700-177

DENMARK         45-7014-0284    8088-8324

ESTONIA                 800-011-1093

FINLAND         358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610

FRANCE  LYON:   33-4-26-69-12-85        080-511-1496

FRANCE  MARSEILLE:      33-4-86-06-00-85        080-511-1496

FRANCE  PARIS:  33-1-70-70-60-72        080-511-1496

GERMANY         49-69-2222-20362        0800-664-4247<tel:0800-664-4247>

GREECE          30-80-1-100-0687        00800-12-7312

HONG KONG               852-3001-3863   800-962-856

HUNGARY                 06-800-12755

INDIA   INDIA A:                000-800-852-1268

INDIA   INDIA B:                000-800-001-6305

INDIA   INDIA C:                1800-300-00491

INDONESIA                       001-803-011-3982

IRELAND         353-1-246-7646  1800-992-368

ISRAEL                  1-80-9216162

ITALY   MILAN:  39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383

JAPAN   OSAKA:  81-6-7739-4799<tel:81-6-7739-4799>      0066-33-132439

JAPAN   TOKYO:  81-3-5539-5191<tel:81-3-5539-5191>      0066-33-132439

LATVIA                  8000-3185

LUXEMBOURG              352-27-000-1364

MALAYSIA                        1-800-81-3065

MEXICO                  001-866-376-9696

NETHERLANDS             31-20-718-8588  0800-023-4378<tel:0800-023-4378>

NEW ZEALAND             64-9-970-4771   0800-447-722

NORWAY          47-21-590-062   800-15157

PANAMA                  011-001-800-5072065

PERU                    0800-53713

PHILIPPINES             63-2-858-3716

POLAND                  00-800-1212572

PORTUGAL                        8008-14052

RUSSIA                  8-10-8002-0144011

SAUDI ARABIA                    800-8-110087

SINGAPORE               65-6883-9230    800-120-4663

SLOVAK REPUBLIC         421-2-322-422-25

SOUTH AFRICA                    080-09-80414

SOUTH KOREA             82-2-6744-1083  00798-14800-7352

SPAIN           34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053

SWEDEN          46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622

SWITZERLAND             41-44-580-6398  0800-120-032

TAIWAN          886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797

THAILAND                        001-800-1206-66056

UNITED KINGDOM  BIRMINGHAM:     44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM  GLASGOW:        44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM  LEEDS:  44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM  LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM  MANCHESTER:     44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029

URUGUAY                 000-413-598-3421

USA             1-517-345-9004  866-692-5726

VENEZUELA                       0800-1-00-3702





Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.





Many thanks,

--

Maryam Bakoshi

Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)





Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>

Mobile: +44 7737 698036

Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann

_______________________________________________ EC-NCSG mailing list EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/calendar
Size: 6789 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160819/8a7cabd3/attachment.ics>


From Monika.Zalnieriute  Fri Aug 19 14:40:57 2016
From: Monika.Zalnieriute (Zalnieriute, Monika)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:40:57 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] **Reminder**NCSG ExCom call on Friday,
 19 August 2016 at 13:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <F5E5FA96-5048-441D-BD27-B76C2B2D1D32@icann.org>
References: <F5E5FA96-5048-441D-BD27-B76C2B2D1D32@icann.org>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB556464243808748D892E94AF6160@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Dear All,


Can anyone share a link to NCSG Application list with me, because each time I open my e-mail with notifications, I only get this:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cRLoUkoLC_Kelf7440HBGLxpaMThrRMrSuVrBWqM2bo/edit#gid=2017692019



and there are only individuals, with no pending application under review, or orgs,


Best,


Monika


----

Dr. Monika Zalnieriute



Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I

Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu I
Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org I
Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I zephiroplatform.org I
Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I cihr.eu I









________________________________
From: Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 9:48 AM
To: Ec-NCSG mail list
Cc: Zalnieriute, Monika
Subject: **Reminder**NCSG ExCom call on Friday, 19 August 2016 at 13:00 UTC
When: Friday, August 19, 2016 1:00 PM-3:00 PM.
Where: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/

Dear All,





**Reminder for call today**

Please find below participation details for the NCSG ExCom call on Friday, 19 August 2016 at 13:00 UTC





Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/





Full list of Time Zones: http://tinyurl.com/gpfyuso





Time in some other locations:





Sydney: Friday, 19 August 2016, 23:00

Tokyo: Friday, 19 August 2016, 22:00

Beijing: Friday, 19 August 2016, 21:00

Moscow: Friday, 19 August 2016, 16:00

New Delhi: Friday, 19 August 2016, 18:30

Paris: Friday, 19 August 2016, 15:00

London: Friday, 19 August 2016, 14:00

Buenos Aires: Friday, 19 August 2016, 10:00

New York: Friday, 19 August 2016, 09:00

Los Angeles: Friday, 19 August 2016, 06:00





Agenda: TBC





Passcodes/Pin codes:

Participant passcode: NCSG EC



For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference.



Dial in numbers:

Country         Toll Numbers    Freephone/

Toll Free Number





ARGENTINA                       0800-777-0519<tel:0800-777-0519>

AUSTRALIA       ADELAIDE:       61-8-8121-4842  1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA       BRISBANE:       61-7-3102-0944  1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA       CANBERRA:       61-2-6100-1944  1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA       MELBOURNE:      61-3-9010-7713  1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA       PERTH:  61-8-9467-5223  1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA       SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129  1-800-657-260

AUSTRIA         43-1-92-81-113  0800-005-259

BELGIUM         32-2-400-9861   0800-3-8795

BRAZIL                  0800-7610651<tel:0800-7610651>

CHILE                   1230-020-2863

CHINA   CHINA A:        86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670

CHINA   CHINA B:        86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670

COLOMBIA                        01800-9-156474

CZECH REPUBLIC          420-2-25-98-56-64       800-700-177

DENMARK         45-7014-0284    8088-8324

ESTONIA                 800-011-1093

FINLAND         358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610

FRANCE  LYON:   33-4-26-69-12-85        080-511-1496

FRANCE  MARSEILLE:      33-4-86-06-00-85        080-511-1496

FRANCE  PARIS:  33-1-70-70-60-72        080-511-1496

GERMANY         49-69-2222-20362        0800-664-4247<tel:0800-664-4247>

GREECE          30-80-1-100-0687        00800-12-7312

HONG KONG               852-3001-3863   800-962-856

HUNGARY                 06-800-12755

INDIA   INDIA A:                000-800-852-1268

INDIA   INDIA B:                000-800-001-6305

INDIA   INDIA C:                1800-300-00491

INDONESIA                       001-803-011-3982

IRELAND         353-1-246-7646  1800-992-368

ISRAEL                  1-80-9216162

ITALY   MILAN:  39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383

JAPAN   OSAKA:  81-6-7739-4799<tel:81-6-7739-4799>      0066-33-132439

JAPAN   TOKYO:  81-3-5539-5191<tel:81-3-5539-5191>      0066-33-132439

LATVIA                  8000-3185

LUXEMBOURG              352-27-000-1364

MALAYSIA                        1-800-81-3065

MEXICO                  001-866-376-9696

NETHERLANDS             31-20-718-8588  0800-023-4378<tel:0800-023-4378>

NEW ZEALAND             64-9-970-4771   0800-447-722

NORWAY          47-21-590-062   800-15157

PANAMA                  011-001-800-5072065

PERU                    0800-53713

PHILIPPINES             63-2-858-3716

POLAND                  00-800-1212572

PORTUGAL                        8008-14052

RUSSIA                  8-10-8002-0144011

SAUDI ARABIA                    800-8-110087

SINGAPORE               65-6883-9230    800-120-4663

SLOVAK REPUBLIC         421-2-322-422-25

SOUTH AFRICA                    080-09-80414

SOUTH KOREA             82-2-6744-1083  00798-14800-7352

SPAIN           34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053

SWEDEN          46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622

SWITZERLAND             41-44-580-6398  0800-120-032

TAIWAN          886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797

THAILAND                        001-800-1206-66056

UNITED KINGDOM  BIRMINGHAM:     44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM  GLASGOW:        44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM  LEEDS:  44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM  LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM  MANCHESTER:     44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029

URUGUAY                 000-413-598-3421

USA             1-517-345-9004  866-692-5726

VENEZUELA                       0800-1-00-3702





Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.





Many thanks,

--

Maryam Bakoshi

Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)





Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>

Mobile: +44 7737 698036

Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann

_______________________________________________ EC-NCSG mailing list EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160819/faa9ada2/attachment-0001.html>


From Monika.Zalnieriute  Fri Aug 19 14:58:08 2016
From: Monika.Zalnieriute (Zalnieriute, Monika)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:58:08 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] **Reminder**NCSG ExCom call on Friday,
 19 August 2016 at 13:00 UTC
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB556464243808748D892E94AF6160@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <F5E5FA96-5048-441D-BD27-B76C2B2D1D32@icann.org>,
	<DB3PR05MB556464243808748D892E94AF6160@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB5565E886979607E96A8D688F6160@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Its all done, I have accessed and left my opinions there already:) Thanks!


----

Dr. Monika Zalnieriute



Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I

Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu I
Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org I
Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I zephiroplatform.org I
Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I cihr.eu I







________________________________
From: Zalnieriute, Monika
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 11:40:57 AM
To: Maryam Bakoshi; Ec-NCSG mail list
Subject: Re: **Reminder**NCSG ExCom call on Friday, 19 August 2016 at 13:00 UTC


Dear All,


Can anyone share a link to NCSG Application list with me, because each time I open my e-mail with notifications, I only get this:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cRLoUkoLC_Kelf7440HBGLxpaMThrRMrSuVrBWqM2bo/edit#gid=2017692019



and there are only individuals, with no pending application under review, or orgs,


Best,


Monika


----

Dr. Monika Zalnieriute



Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I

Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu I
Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org I
Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I zephiroplatform.org I
Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I cihr.eu I









________________________________
From: Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2016 9:48 AM
To: Ec-NCSG mail list
Cc: Zalnieriute, Monika
Subject: **Reminder**NCSG ExCom call on Friday, 19 August 2016 at 13:00 UTC
When: Friday, August 19, 2016 1:00 PM-3:00 PM.
Where: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/

Dear All,





**Reminder for call today**

Please find below participation details for the NCSG ExCom call on Friday, 19 August 2016 at 13:00 UTC





Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/





Full list of Time Zones: http://tinyurl.com/gpfyuso





Time in some other locations:





Sydney: Friday, 19 August 2016, 23:00

Tokyo: Friday, 19 August 2016, 22:00

Beijing: Friday, 19 August 2016, 21:00

Moscow: Friday, 19 August 2016, 16:00

New Delhi: Friday, 19 August 2016, 18:30

Paris: Friday, 19 August 2016, 15:00

London: Friday, 19 August 2016, 14:00

Buenos Aires: Friday, 19 August 2016, 10:00

New York: Friday, 19 August 2016, 09:00

Los Angeles: Friday, 19 August 2016, 06:00





Agenda: TBC





Passcodes/Pin codes:

Participant passcode: NCSG EC



For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference.



Dial in numbers:

Country         Toll Numbers    Freephone/

Toll Free Number





ARGENTINA                       0800-777-0519<tel:0800-777-0519>

AUSTRALIA       ADELAIDE:       61-8-8121-4842  1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA       BRISBANE:       61-7-3102-0944  1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA       CANBERRA:       61-2-6100-1944  1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA       MELBOURNE:      61-3-9010-7713  1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA       PERTH:  61-8-9467-5223  1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA       SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129  1-800-657-260

AUSTRIA         43-1-92-81-113  0800-005-259

BELGIUM         32-2-400-9861   0800-3-8795

BRAZIL                  0800-7610651<tel:0800-7610651>

CHILE                   1230-020-2863

CHINA   CHINA A:        86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670

CHINA   CHINA B:        86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670

COLOMBIA                        01800-9-156474

CZECH REPUBLIC          420-2-25-98-56-64       800-700-177

DENMARK         45-7014-0284    8088-8324

ESTONIA                 800-011-1093

FINLAND         358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610

FRANCE  LYON:   33-4-26-69-12-85        080-511-1496

FRANCE  MARSEILLE:      33-4-86-06-00-85        080-511-1496

FRANCE  PARIS:  33-1-70-70-60-72        080-511-1496

GERMANY         49-69-2222-20362        0800-664-4247<tel:0800-664-4247>

GREECE          30-80-1-100-0687        00800-12-7312

HONG KONG               852-3001-3863   800-962-856

HUNGARY                 06-800-12755

INDIA   INDIA A:                000-800-852-1268

INDIA   INDIA B:                000-800-001-6305

INDIA   INDIA C:                1800-300-00491

INDONESIA                       001-803-011-3982

IRELAND         353-1-246-7646  1800-992-368

ISRAEL                  1-80-9216162

ITALY   MILAN:  39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383

JAPAN   OSAKA:  81-6-7739-4799<tel:81-6-7739-4799>      0066-33-132439

JAPAN   TOKYO:  81-3-5539-5191<tel:81-3-5539-5191>      0066-33-132439

LATVIA                  8000-3185

LUXEMBOURG              352-27-000-1364

MALAYSIA                        1-800-81-3065

MEXICO                  001-866-376-9696

NETHERLANDS             31-20-718-8588  0800-023-4378<tel:0800-023-4378>

NEW ZEALAND             64-9-970-4771   0800-447-722

NORWAY          47-21-590-062   800-15157

PANAMA                  011-001-800-5072065

PERU                    0800-53713

PHILIPPINES             63-2-858-3716

POLAND                  00-800-1212572

PORTUGAL                        8008-14052

RUSSIA                  8-10-8002-0144011

SAUDI ARABIA                    800-8-110087

SINGAPORE               65-6883-9230    800-120-4663

SLOVAK REPUBLIC         421-2-322-422-25

SOUTH AFRICA                    080-09-80414

SOUTH KOREA             82-2-6744-1083  00798-14800-7352

SPAIN           34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053

SWEDEN          46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622

SWITZERLAND             41-44-580-6398  0800-120-032

TAIWAN          886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797

THAILAND                        001-800-1206-66056

UNITED KINGDOM  BIRMINGHAM:     44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM  GLASGOW:        44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM  LEEDS:  44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM  LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM  MANCHESTER:     44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029

URUGUAY                 000-413-598-3421

USA             1-517-345-9004  866-692-5726

VENEZUELA                       0800-1-00-3702





Restrictions may exist when accessing freephone/toll free numbers using a mobile telephone.





Many thanks,

--

Maryam Bakoshi

Secretariat ?Support - NCSG, NCUC, NPOC

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)





Email: maryam.bakoshi at icann.org<mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>

Mobile: +44 7737 698036

Skype: maryam.bakoshi.icann

_______________________________________________ EC-NCSG mailing list EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160819/0f3b2379/attachment-0001.html>


From ncsg  Mon Aug 22 17:06:43 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 17:06:43 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question
Message-ID: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>

Dear EC members,

Quick question: do you want to override me on the ballot/NOTA
issue and have new ballots changed?

I don't see the need and don't expect any complaints to
Ombudsman or elsewhere to succeed.

But I will yield to your opinion if you agree that
a new ballot is needed.

A prompt reply (as in, today) would be appreciated.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From joankerr  Mon Aug 22 17:35:41 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 10:35:41 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question
In-Reply-To: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CADwmshLNMS1pe-+3xUQmKJnX15bgHtHfAOsY5eU9iKs-Ts6jBg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Tapani,

I agree with your opinion.  I do think we have to clarify the issues for
future elections.  I am in agreement for this election.

Joan


On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <
ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:

> Dear EC members,
>
> Quick question: do you want to override me on the ballot/NOTA
> issue and have new ballots changed?
>
> I don't see the need and don't expect any complaints to
> Ombudsman or elsewhere to succeed.
>
> But I will yield to your opinion if you agree that
> a new ballot is needed.
>
> A prompt reply (as in, today) would be appreciated.
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160822/4e058442/attachment.html>


From pileleji  Mon Aug 22 17:52:17 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 14:52:17 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question
In-Reply-To: <CADwmshLNMS1pe-+3xUQmKJnX15bgHtHfAOsY5eU9iKs-Ts6jBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>
	<CADwmshLNMS1pe-+3xUQmKJnX15bgHtHfAOsY5eU9iKs-Ts6jBg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEux40tEDJR_afaR1TRwDDN=zGNHGnbNSiPjK_Sk_1DXrkJB1A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Tapani,

I concur with your opinions.

Best Regards


Poncelet


On 22 August 2016 at 14:35, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:

> Hi Tapani,
>
> I agree with your opinion.  I do think we have to clarify the issues for
> future elections.  I am in agreement for this election.
>
> Joan
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>
>> Dear EC members,
>>
>> Quick question: do you want to override me on the ballot/NOTA
>> issue and have new ballots changed?
>>
>> I don't see the need and don't expect any complaints to
>> Ombudsman or elsewhere to succeed.
>>
>> But I will yield to your opinion if you agree that
>> a new ballot is needed.
>>
>> A prompt reply (as in, today) would be appreciated.
>>
>> --
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
>


-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160822/53f2f6a8/attachment.html>


From robin  Mon Aug 22 18:52:27 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 08:52:27 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question
In-Reply-To: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <66D67938-A094-47BD-9FDA-FC12127BAD70@ipjustice.org>

Can we organize a quick meeting on this issue asap?

The way NOTA has always been used in the past meant that if NOTA got the most votes, none of the candidates win. 

NOTA beats those candidates who score below the NOTA votes.  

So if candidate 1 gets 100 votes and 
NOTA gets 90 votes and 
candidate 2 gets 80 votes, 
then candidate 2 does not get elected because NOTA beat that candidate.
Even if only have 2 slots up for election.  

This is how we designed the ballot and the voting to be interpreted in the past.  

But if that understanding is being challenged now, then we do need to take this further, possibly to the ombudsman to get it clarified.

Thanks,
Robin

> On Aug 22, 2016, at 7:06 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> Dear EC members,
> 
> Quick question: do you want to override me on the ballot/NOTA
> issue and have new ballots changed?
> 
> I don't see the need and don't expect any complaints to
> Ombudsman or elsewhere to succeed.
> 
> But I will yield to your opinion if you agree that
> a new ballot is needed.
> 
> A prompt reply (as in, today) would be appreciated.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
> 




From robin  Mon Aug 22 19:03:08 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 09:03:08 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question
In-Reply-To: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <D72411BA-1530-476B-BD65-7772C9474337@ipjustice.org>

I do think we need new ballots because many members are now confused about what NOTA means.   We had a re-start an election a few years ago when a ballot was confusing and it was no problem.

Thanks,
Robin

> On Aug 22, 2016, at 7:06 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> Dear EC members,
> 
> Quick question: do you want to override me on the ballot/NOTA
> issue and have new ballots changed?
> 
> I don't see the need and don't expect any complaints to
> Ombudsman or elsewhere to succeed.
> 
> But I will yield to your opinion if you agree that
> a new ballot is needed.
> 
> A prompt reply (as in, today) would be appreciated.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
> 




From ncsg  Mon Aug 22 19:06:49 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:06:49 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question
In-Reply-To: <D72411BA-1530-476B-BD65-7772C9474337@ipjustice.org>
References: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>
	<D72411BA-1530-476B-BD65-7772C9474337@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20160822160649.GA22262@tarvainen.info>

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 09:03:08AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:

> I do think we need new ballots because many members are now confused
> about what NOTA means.

I don't see any confusion what it means, only disagreement
about what it should mean.

> We had a re-start an election a few years ago when a ballot was
> confusing and it was no problem.

Technically it could be done but I don't see the need.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From ncsg  Mon Aug 22 19:10:27 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:10:27 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question
In-Reply-To: <66D67938-A094-47BD-9FDA-FC12127BAD70@ipjustice.org>
References: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>
	<66D67938-A094-47BD-9FDA-FC12127BAD70@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20160822161027.GB22262@tarvainen.info>

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 08:52:27AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:

> Can we organize a quick meeting on this issue asap?

We're having one right now. Email is enough.
Getting a call organized would take too long.

> The way NOTA has always been used in the past meant that if NOTA got
> the most votes, none of the candidates win.

You mean it has actually happened?

Or that a formal decision to that effect has been made?

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From robin  Mon Aug 22 19:16:01 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 09:16:01 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question
In-Reply-To: <20160822161027.GB22262@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>
	<66D67938-A094-47BD-9FDA-FC12127BAD70@ipjustice.org>
	<20160822161027.GB22262@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <D9FA6947-C624-452D-8308-80243D518BE4@ipjustice.org>


> On Aug 22, 2016, at 9:10 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 08:52:27AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> [?]
> 
>> The way NOTA has always been used in the past meant that if NOTA got
>> the most votes, none of the candidates win.
> 
> You mean it has actually happened?
> 
> Or that a formal decision to that effect has been made?
> 

NOTA has not defeated any candidate yet, but every candidate is running against NOTA.
This has been the clear meaning for several years and was why we started to include NOTA on the ballots years ago.  We wanted to be sure that each candidate is in fact running, and that this is a true election and not merely a symbolic gesture.  You may want to consult with Avri (the NCSG Chair before me) and Rafk (NCSG Chair after me) to confirm that this has been the interpretation of NOTA since NCSG was created.

Thanks,
Robin


> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
> 




From pileleji  Mon Aug 22 19:16:08 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 16:16:08 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question
In-Reply-To: <D72411BA-1530-476B-BD65-7772C9474337@ipjustice.org>
References: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>
	<D72411BA-1530-476B-BD65-7772C9474337@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAEux40sWSM6hT2zH0CysWbxpqhE_Zsvc8M35QrkR6H0vMmZ9VA@mail.gmail.com>

I concur with Robin,



On 22 August 2016 at 16:03, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> I do think we need new ballots because many members are now confused about
> what NOTA means.   We had a re-start an election a few years ago when a
> ballot was confusing and it was no problem.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> > On Aug 22, 2016, at 7:06 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> >
> > Dear EC members,
> >
> > Quick question: do you want to override me on the ballot/NOTA
> > issue and have new ballots changed?
> >
> > I don't see the need and don't expect any complaints to
> > Ombudsman or elsewhere to succeed.
> >
> > But I will yield to your opinion if you agree that
> > a new ballot is needed.
> >
> > A prompt reply (as in, today) would be appreciated.
> >
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > EC-NCSG mailing list
> > EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>



-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160822/8a45f881/attachment.html>


From pileleji  Mon Aug 22 19:30:00 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 16:30:00 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40sWSM6hT2zH0CysWbxpqhE_Zsvc8M35QrkR6H0vMmZ9VA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>
	<D72411BA-1530-476B-BD65-7772C9474337@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40sWSM6hT2zH0CysWbxpqhE_Zsvc8M35QrkR6H0vMmZ9VA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEux40stxG5ddxX=HFA0ONvVb-g=E1nZTQCs5xn4waZQ7sW3Sg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Colleagues,

Please what I clearly meant for clarity is that  I only concur with Robin
about technical ability to issue new ballots but don't want to do it now.

Thanks

Poncelet

On 22 August 2016 at 16:16, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:

> I concur with Robin,
>
>
>
> On 22 August 2016 at 16:03, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> I do think we need new ballots because many members are now confused
>> about what NOTA means.   We had a re-start an election a few years ago when
>> a ballot was confusing and it was no problem.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>> > On Aug 22, 2016, at 7:06 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <
>> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>> >
>> > Dear EC members,
>> >
>> > Quick question: do you want to override me on the ballot/NOTA
>> > issue and have new ballots changed?
>> >
>> > I don't see the need and don't expect any complaints to
>> > Ombudsman or elsewhere to succeed.
>> >
>> > But I will yield to your opinion if you agree that
>> > a new ballot is needed.
>> >
>> > A prompt reply (as in, today) would be appreciated.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Tapani Tarvainen
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > EC-NCSG mailing list
>> > EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
> <http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
> <http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160822/c20a4785/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Mon Aug 22 19:44:29 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:44:29 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question
In-Reply-To: <D9FA6947-C624-452D-8308-80243D518BE4@ipjustice.org>
References: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>
	<66D67938-A094-47BD-9FDA-FC12127BAD70@ipjustice.org>
	<20160822161027.GB22262@tarvainen.info>
	<D9FA6947-C624-452D-8308-80243D518BE4@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20160822164429.GD22262@tarvainen.info>

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 09:16:01AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:

> NOTA has not defeated any candidate yet, but every candidate is
> running against NOTA. This has been the clear meaning for several
> years and was why we started to include NOTA on the ballots years
> ago.

Absent a formal decision somewhere I don't find that persuasive.

If the intent was that, unlike in any normal election I can think of,
there should be a way to cast negative votes rather than just abstain
from voting candidates you don't like, there should be an explicit
rule, formally decided, to that effect. Not just recollections of
oldtimers of how it was meant to be.

For the next election let's make an explicit, properly decided
procedure. But now, I still don't see a good enough reason to
issue new ballots, and I don't see anybody agreeing with you
that it should be done, either.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From joankerr  Mon Aug 22 20:04:59 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 13:04:59 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question
In-Reply-To: <20160822164429.GD22262@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>
	<66D67938-A094-47BD-9FDA-FC12127BAD70@ipjustice.org>
	<20160822161027.GB22262@tarvainen.info>
	<D9FA6947-C624-452D-8308-80243D518BE4@ipjustice.org>
	<20160822164429.GD22262@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CADwmshL5ZDL97-fRUzAj5qD21dWxPp8Hde8iRmX35O6YR+N4fg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Tapani, All

I am in total agreement, that we make the procedure for the next election
explicit.  I don't see any reason to issue new ballots.
Joan

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <
ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 09:16:01AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org)
> wrote:
>
> > NOTA has not defeated any candidate yet, but every candidate is
> > running against NOTA. This has been the clear meaning for several
> > years and was why we started to include NOTA on the ballots years
> > ago.
>
> Absent a formal decision somewhere I don't find that persuasive.
>
> If the intent was that, unlike in any normal election I can think of,
> there should be a way to cast negative votes rather than just abstain
> from voting candidates you don't like, there should be an explicit
> rule, formally decided, to that effect. Not just recollections of
> oldtimers of how it was meant to be.
>
> For the next election let's make an explicit, properly decided
> procedure. But now, I still don't see a good enough reason to
> issue new ballots, and I don't see anybody agreeing with you
> that it should be done, either.
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160822/2beb4f81/attachment.html>


From robin  Mon Aug 22 20:14:22 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 10:14:22 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40stxG5ddxX=HFA0ONvVb-g=E1nZTQCs5xn4waZQ7sW3Sg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>
	<D72411BA-1530-476B-BD65-7772C9474337@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40sWSM6hT2zH0CysWbxpqhE_Zsvc8M35QrkR6H0vMmZ9VA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40stxG5ddxX=HFA0ONvVb-g=E1nZTQCs5xn4waZQ7sW3Sg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <647C6DEB-5A74-42A8-B342-D980E21B7581@ipjustice.org>

These ballots were never approved of by the EC as required by the Charter, and given the misunderstanding some are having about the meaning of NOTA, these ballots are invalid.

Thanks,
Robin

> On Aug 22, 2016, at 9:30 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> Please what I clearly meant for clarity is that  I only concur with Robin about technical ability to issue new ballots but don't want to do it now.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Poncelet
> 
> On 22 August 2016 at 16:16, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
> I concur with Robin,
> 
> 
> 
> On 22 August 2016 at 16:03, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
> I do think we need new ballots because many members are now confused about what NOTA means.   We had a re-start an election a few years ago when a ballot was confusing and it was no problem.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> > On Aug 22, 2016, at 7:06 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:
> >
> > Dear EC members,
> >
> > Quick question: do you want to override me on the ballot/NOTA
> > issue and have new ballots changed?
> >
> > I don't see the need and don't expect any complaints to
> > Ombudsman or elsewhere to succeed.
> >
> > But I will yield to your opinion if you agree that
> > a new ballot is needed.
> >
> > A prompt reply (as in, today) would be appreciated.
> >
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > EC-NCSG mailing list
> > EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240 <tel:%28220%29%204370240>
> Fax:(220) 4390793 <tel:%28220%29%204390793>
> Cell:(220) 9912508 <tel:%28220%29%209912508>
> Skype: pons_utd
> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160822/c9402ab4/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Mon Aug 22 20:33:18 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 20:33:18 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question
In-Reply-To: <647C6DEB-5A74-42A8-B342-D980E21B7581@ipjustice.org>
References: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>
	<D72411BA-1530-476B-BD65-7772C9474337@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40sWSM6hT2zH0CysWbxpqhE_Zsvc8M35QrkR6H0vMmZ9VA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40stxG5ddxX=HFA0ONvVb-g=E1nZTQCs5xn4waZQ7sW3Sg@mail.gmail.com>
	<647C6DEB-5A74-42A8-B342-D980E21B7581@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20160822173318.GJ22262@tarvainen.info>

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:14:22AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:

> These ballots were never approved of by the EC as required by the
> Charter

Could you please point out where the Charter requires that?

The EC is tasked with supervising and monitoring elections,
but I don't see any requirement that the ballot should be
explicitly approved by the EC.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From robin  Mon Aug 22 20:48:26 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 10:48:26 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question
In-Reply-To: <20160822173318.GJ22262@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>
	<D72411BA-1530-476B-BD65-7772C9474337@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40sWSM6hT2zH0CysWbxpqhE_Zsvc8M35QrkR6H0vMmZ9VA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40stxG5ddxX=HFA0ONvVb-g=E1nZTQCs5xn4waZQ7sW3Sg@mail.gmail.com>
	<647C6DEB-5A74-42A8-B342-D980E21B7581@ipjustice.org>
	<20160822173318.GJ22262@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <8C2D9630-4B82-4074-8815-FC44F54ACD31@ipjustice.org>

Sure.  

Section 2.4 of NCSG Charter says the Committee must supervise and monitor the elections.

and section 2.3 states the Committee is responsible for monitoring and supervising the chair's performance of executive functions.

and it also explicitly says the chair carries out executive functions under the Committee's oversight.

Without ballot approval and given this new interpretation of NOTA (unilaterally issued by one member of the EC to much surprise of the others) that contradicts the understanding of NOTA held by the 3 previous NCSG EC Chairs, we have a situation where decisions are not being made by the committee as a whole and with oversight by the committee as required by the charter.  There is a reason the charter explicitly requires the Committee as a whole to be in charge and have final oversight: the Chair was not intended to be given unilateral authority to make such critical changes.

I expect to see a petition launched by the membership pursuant to the charter to challenge this new interpretation of the NOTA.

These ballots did not have adequate supervision and monitoring and oversight by the EC as is required by the charter.  I understand this was an honest misunderstanding and attempt to get things done quickly and efficiently by the chair, but given the significance of elections in democratic systems, it is one worth getting right.

Thanks,
Robin



> On Aug 22, 2016, at 10:33 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:14:22AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> 
>> These ballots were never approved of by the EC as required by the
>> Charter
> 
> Could you please point out where the Charter requires that?
> 
> The EC is tasked with supervising and monitoring elections,
> but I don't see any requirement that the ballot should be
> explicitly approved by the EC.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
> 




From ncsg  Mon Aug 22 20:56:03 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 20:56:03 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question
In-Reply-To: <8C2D9630-4B82-4074-8815-FC44F54ACD31@ipjustice.org>
References: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>
	<D72411BA-1530-476B-BD65-7772C9474337@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40sWSM6hT2zH0CysWbxpqhE_Zsvc8M35QrkR6H0vMmZ9VA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40stxG5ddxX=HFA0ONvVb-g=E1nZTQCs5xn4waZQ7sW3Sg@mail.gmail.com>
	<647C6DEB-5A74-42A8-B342-D980E21B7581@ipjustice.org>
	<20160822173318.GJ22262@tarvainen.info>
	<8C2D9630-4B82-4074-8815-FC44F54ACD31@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20160822175603.GB27370@tarvainen.info>

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 10:48:26AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:

> Section 2.4 of NCSG Charter says the Committee must supervise and
> monitor the elections.

Yes.

> and section 2.3 states the Committee is responsible for monitoring
> and supervising the chair's performance of executive functions.

Yes.

> and it also explicitly says the chair carries out executive
> functions under the Committee's oversight.

Yes.

In each case it is up to the EC to decide what is an appropriate
level of supervision and oversight.

> Without ballot approval and given this new interpretation of NOTA
> (unilaterally issued by one member of the EC to much surprise of the
> others) that contradicts the understanding of NOTA held by the 3
> previous NCSG EC Chairs,

... that has been documented nowhere, apparently.

> I expect to see a petition launched by the membership pursuant to
> the charter to challenge this new interpretation of the NOTA.

They certainly may do so.

> These ballots did not have adequate supervision and monitoring and
> oversight by the EC

The EC can of course so decide and chastise me and do whatever
it sees fit to correct the situation.

So far I don't see the EC willing to do that, only you.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From ncsg  Mon Aug 22 22:43:04 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 22:43:04 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question
In-Reply-To: <20160822175603.GB27370@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>
	<D72411BA-1530-476B-BD65-7772C9474337@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40sWSM6hT2zH0CysWbxpqhE_Zsvc8M35QrkR6H0vMmZ9VA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40stxG5ddxX=HFA0ONvVb-g=E1nZTQCs5xn4waZQ7sW3Sg@mail.gmail.com>
	<647C6DEB-5A74-42A8-B342-D980E21B7581@ipjustice.org>
	<20160822173318.GJ22262@tarvainen.info>
	<8C2D9630-4B82-4074-8815-FC44F54ACD31@ipjustice.org>
	<20160822175603.GB27370@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <20160822194304.GA32352@tarvainen.info>

It seems clear this discussion isn't going any further.

The EC clearly isn't willing to make a decision to
call for new ballots or restart the election otherwise.

So I'll call this discussion closed.

But if someone wants to propose a decision disapproving
my handling of the election, feel free to go ahead,
I will recuse myself.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From Monika.Zalnieriute  Tue Aug 23 03:11:57 2016
From: Monika.Zalnieriute (Zalnieriute, Monika)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 00:11:57 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question
In-Reply-To: <20160822194304.GA32352@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>
	<D72411BA-1530-476B-BD65-7772C9474337@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40sWSM6hT2zH0CysWbxpqhE_Zsvc8M35QrkR6H0vMmZ9VA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40stxG5ddxX=HFA0ONvVb-g=E1nZTQCs5xn4waZQ7sW3Sg@mail.gmail.com>
	<647C6DEB-5A74-42A8-B342-D980E21B7581@ipjustice.org>
	<20160822173318.GJ22262@tarvainen.info>
	<8C2D9630-4B82-4074-8815-FC44F54ACD31@ipjustice.org>
	<20160822175603.GB27370@tarvainen.info>,
	<20160822194304.GA32352@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB556DB31830184289D93A0A4F6EB0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Dear Tapani and members of the EC,


I agree with the concerns raised, and I would like to briefly postpone an annual election to get the system fixed.


Living in Australia means I cannot reply in Tapani's e-mail asking if EC wants to change anything in 1 minute. Nor do I believe people are expected to reply within 10 minutes (that was the timeline, according to the timings between 2 e-mails of Tapani, with the second one stating:'But it seems the EC isn't willing to call for new ballots or anything else at this point. So the voting will continue with current ballots.'). It was the middle of the night, and I was sleeping. I did not take such decision no to do anything, once I woke up, and saw all of this, I would like to in fact exercise the EC right to postpone the elections.


As a member of the EC, I have refrained from signing any petitions against the decisions that the EC (at least me personally as a member) did not yet even take. I would imagine, we better need to solve this internally within the EC committee?


I suggest we do so as soon as we can,


Best wishes,


Monika


----

Dr. Monika Zalnieriute



Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I

Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu I
Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org I
Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I zephiroplatform.org I
Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I cihr.eu I









________________________________
From: EC-NCSG <ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> on behalf of Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 7:43 PM
To: ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question

It seems clear this discussion isn't going any further.

The EC clearly isn't willing to make a decision to
call for new ballots or restart the election otherwise.

So I'll call this discussion closed.

But if someone wants to propose a decision disapproving
my handling of the election, feel free to go ahead,
I will recuse myself.

--
Tapani Tarvainen

_______________________________________________
EC-NCSG mailing list
EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160823/b7bde4bf/attachment.html>


From robin  Tue Aug 23 07:58:26 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2016 21:58:26 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Statement from All Previous NCSG EC Chairs: Clarification
	of NCSG's Longstanding Interpretation of NOTA
Message-ID: <1DC404A0-87D4-4060-8A07-30886BB04EA9@ipjustice.org>

Dear Tapani,

We write to you as the 3 previous chairs of the NCSG Executive Committee out of concern for the new interpretation you provided to the membership today for the phrase ?None of The Above? (NOTA) in NCSG?s annual election process.

As all previous NCSG Executive Committee Chairs, and as those who were each involved in the drafting of NCSG?s Charter and the administration of every election NCSG has ever held under it, we feel the need to clarify how NCSG has always interpreted NOTA in our elections.

Every candidate stands against NOTA because we intended for each candidate to engage in a meaningful and honest democratic election, irrespective of the number of candidates running for a position.  Those candidates who receive less votes than NOTA are not elected for the position as there was insufficient support demonstrated for such a candidate.  NCSG elections have never been intended to be merely ??symbolic? gestures with members having no real opportunity to reject each and every candidate in an election.

Your emails to the list today on this topic caused us great concern as they seemed to contradict NCSG?s longstanding election practice and interpretation of NOTA by implying NCSG members have no opportunity to vote for or against each and every candidate. 

We hope this statement clarifies your previous misunderstanding of the meaning of NOTA and helps to reinstate NCSG members? democratic rights to accept or reject every candidate who stands for election.

Thank you,
Avri Doria (NCSG EC Chair 2011-12) 
Robin Gross (NCSG EC Chair 2012-14)
Rafik Dammak (NCSG EC Chair 2014-15)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160822/735a968a/attachment-0001.html>


From ncsg  Tue Aug 23 08:02:44 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 08:02:44 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB556DB31830184289D93A0A4F6EB0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20160822140643.GA16509@tarvainen.info>
	<D72411BA-1530-476B-BD65-7772C9474337@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40sWSM6hT2zH0CysWbxpqhE_Zsvc8M35QrkR6H0vMmZ9VA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40stxG5ddxX=HFA0ONvVb-g=E1nZTQCs5xn4waZQ7sW3Sg@mail.gmail.com>
	<647C6DEB-5A74-42A8-B342-D980E21B7581@ipjustice.org>
	<20160822173318.GJ22262@tarvainen.info>
	<8C2D9630-4B82-4074-8815-FC44F54ACD31@ipjustice.org>
	<20160822175603.GB27370@tarvainen.info>
	<20160822194304.GA32352@tarvainen.info>
	<DB3PR05MB556DB31830184289D93A0A4F6EB0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <20160823050244.GA4200@tarvainen.info>

Dear Monika,

My apologies for rushing things. You are indeed not required to
read email at night or even every day.

But sometimes things just happen quickly. Note that I didn't say
"the EC has decided..." - only that it doesn't seem willing to,
and since EC decisions require consensus and opinions expressed
by that time rather clearly indicated lack of consensus, I don't
think that was inaccurate.

In order for the EC to actually make a decision, I would of course
make sure all its members get to have their say, with either
sufficiently long discussion on the list or a call.

In the absense of any signs that we might reach a consensus,
I'm not sure a formal meeting would be useful now. But I can
certainly arrange a call if others think it'd help.

Tapani

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 12:11:57AM +0000, Zalnieriute, Monika (Monika.Zalnieriute at EUI.eu) wrote:

> Dear Tapani and members of the EC,
> 
> 
> I agree with the concerns raised, and I would like to briefly postpone an annual election to get the system fixed.
> 
> 
> Living in Australia means I cannot reply in Tapani's e-mail asking if EC wants to change anything in 1 minute. Nor do I believe people are expected to reply within 10 minutes (that was the timeline, according to the timings between 2 e-mails of Tapani, with the second one stating:'But it seems the EC isn't willing to call for new ballots or anything else at this point. So the voting will continue with current ballots.'). It was the middle of the night, and I was sleeping. I did not take such decision no to do anything, once I woke up, and saw all of this, I would like to in fact exercise the EC right to postpone the elections.
> 
> 
> As a member of the EC, I have refrained from signing any petitions against the decisions that the EC (at least me personally as a member) did not yet even take. I would imagine, we better need to solve this internally within the EC committee?
> 
> 
> I suggest we do so as soon as we can,
> 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> 
> Monika
> 
> 
> ----
> 
> Dr. Monika Zalnieriute
> 
> 
> 
> Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I
> 
> Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu I
> Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org I
> Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I zephiroplatform.org I
> Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I cihr.eu I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: EC-NCSG <ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> on behalf of Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 7:43 PM
> To: ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] QUICK: Ballot question
> 
> It seems clear this discussion isn't going any further.
> 
> The EC clearly isn't willing to make a decision to
> call for new ballots or restart the election otherwise.
> 
> So I'll call this discussion closed.
> 
> But if someone wants to propose a decision disapproving
> my handling of the election, feel free to go ahead,
> I will recuse myself.
> 
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen



From ncsg  Tue Aug 23 09:59:51 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 09:59:51 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Statement from All Previous NCSG EC Chairs:
 Clarification of NCSG's Longstanding Interpretation of NOTA
In-Reply-To: <1DC404A0-87D4-4060-8A07-30886BB04EA9@ipjustice.org>
References: <1DC404A0-87D4-4060-8A07-30886BB04EA9@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20160823065951.GA8821@tarvainen.info>

Dear predecessors,

Thank you for the explanation.

Your recollection does not quite match mine. But, my memory
being fallible, I dug into past records.

In 2011, election was run by Avri. I haven't found the actual ballot,
but list discussion indicates NOTA was present - but interpreted, by
Avri, essentially as I did now (the number of seats was different):

"In the case of the g-council vote, the decision is to pick the top 4
people. So if 'none of the above' comes in in any of the top 4 places,
I suggest that it just gets skipped and the top 4 vote getters become
the g-council representative."

http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1110&L=ncsg-discuss&D=0&P=115980

That is so far the only statement I've found by a Chair running the
election that takes an explicit stand on the issue at hand.

In 2012 the ballot, run by Robin, was substantially different:
candidates were explicitly selected by region, with separate NOTA for
each. No explanation seems to have been offered as to what NOTA means.
(I can't now find the ballot in the web, only in my personal mail
archive.)

In 2013 ballot was again run by Robin, this time with similar style as
today with a common pool of council candidates, but there was no NOTA
option at all.

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

In 2014, run by Rafik, there was one common NOTA for all council
candidates, but no mention of it in the instructions.

http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1409&L=ncsg-discuss&F=&S=&X=31BCBB9C87C143B93B&P=1055

In 2015, again by Rafik, similar to 2014, except this time NOTA was
mentioned in his instructions - but without any explanation as to how
it would be treated, only stating that 'In each list (Chair, GNSO
councillors), you will also find the "none of the above" option.'

http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1509&L=ncsg-discuss&F=&S=&X=24E79EEDA4AE17FE9E&P=5880

I have not read all past discussions, but on the basis of above it seems
to me the history is not quite as straightforward as you state.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 09:58:26PM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:

> Dear Tapani,
> 
> We write to you as the 3 previous chairs of the NCSG Executive Committee out of concern for the new interpretation you provided to the membership today for the phrase ?None of The Above? (NOTA) in NCSG?s annual election process.
> 
> As all previous NCSG Executive Committee Chairs, and as those who were each involved in the drafting of NCSG?s Charter and the administration of every election NCSG has ever held under it, we feel the need to clarify how NCSG has always interpreted NOTA in our elections.
> 
> Every candidate stands against NOTA because we intended for each candidate to engage in a meaningful and honest democratic election, irrespective of the number of candidates running for a position.  Those candidates who receive less votes than NOTA are not elected for the position as there was insufficient support demonstrated for such a candidate.  NCSG elections have never been intended to be merely ??symbolic? gestures with members having no real opportunity to reject each and every candidate in an election.
> 
> Your emails to the list today on this topic caused us great concern as they seemed to contradict NCSG?s longstanding election practice and interpretation of NOTA by implying NCSG members have no opportunity to vote for or against each and every candidate. 
> 
> We hope this statement clarifies your previous misunderstanding of the meaning of NOTA and helps to reinstate NCSG members? democratic rights to accept or reject every candidate who stands for election.
> 
> Thank you,
> Avri Doria (NCSG EC Chair 2011-12) 
> Robin Gross (NCSG EC Chair 2012-14)
> Rafik Dammak (NCSG EC Chair 2014-15)



From ncsg  Tue Aug 23 18:15:23 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 18:15:23 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the
 election process
Message-ID: <20160823151523.GA18132@tarvainen.info>

See attached.

For reference, our charter says

"Any decision of the NCSG-EC can be appealed by requesting a
full vote of the NCSG membership. There are several ways in which
an appeal can be initiated:

* If 15 NCSG members, consisting of both organizational and
individual members, request such an appeal the NCSG Executive
Committee will first take the appeal under consideration.

* If, after consideration of any documentation provided by those
making the appeal, the NCSG-EC does not reverse its decision,
the NCSG-EC and those making the appeal should attempt to
negotiate a mutually agreeable solution.

* If the NCSG-EC and those making the appeal cannot reach a
mutually acceptable agreement on the decision within 30 days,
then an NCSG vote will be scheduled as soon as practicable.

* For this type of appeal to succeed 60% of all of the NCSG
members must approve of the appeal in a full membership vote as
defined in section 4.0."

So we need to take this under consideration.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2016_Election_Challenge.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 33912 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160823/80391d3c/attachment-0001.pdf>


From ncsg  Tue Aug 23 18:36:57 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 18:36:57 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on
 the election process
In-Reply-To: <20160823151523.GA18132@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160823151523.GA18132@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <20160823153657.GA20031@tarvainen.info>

So the next step is to take the appeal under our consideration.

We obviously need to have a proper meeting.

Are you all available tomorrow at 1300 UTC?

Tapani

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 06:15:23PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:

> See attached.
> 
> For reference, our charter says
> 
> "Any decision of the NCSG-EC can be appealed by requesting a
> full vote of the NCSG membership. There are several ways in which
> an appeal can be initiated:
> 
> * If 15 NCSG members, consisting of both organizational and
> individual members, request such an appeal the NCSG Executive
> Committee will first take the appeal under consideration.
> 
> * If, after consideration of any documentation provided by those
> making the appeal, the NCSG-EC does not reverse its decision,
> the NCSG-EC and those making the appeal should attempt to
> negotiate a mutually agreeable solution.
> 
> * If the NCSG-EC and those making the appeal cannot reach a
> mutually acceptable agreement on the decision within 30 days,
> then an NCSG vote will be scheduled as soon as practicable.
> 
> * For this type of appeal to succeed 60% of all of the NCSG
> members must approve of the appeal in a full membership vote as
> defined in section 4.0."
> 
> So we need to take this under consideration.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen



From pileleji  Tue Aug 23 18:44:11 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 15:44:11 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on
 the election process
In-Reply-To: <20160823153657.GA20031@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160823151523.GA18132@tarvainen.info>
	<20160823153657.GA20031@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CAEux40vh++UVZVVMN5PchefkAMWLspgmVMGRLUpFkqDJxwLSPg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Tapani,

Am ready for a meeting provided its done in the spirit of dialogue and
reasonable judgement, but to be sincere what is going on is not good for
all, its scary to me I must be sincere.

Thank you

Poncelet

On 23 August 2016 at 15:36, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
wrote:

> So the next step is to take the appeal under our consideration.
>
> We obviously need to have a proper meeting.
>
> Are you all available tomorrow at 1300 UTC?
>
> Tapani
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 06:15:23PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
>
> > See attached.
> >
> > For reference, our charter says
> >
> > "Any decision of the NCSG-EC can be appealed by requesting a
> > full vote of the NCSG membership. There are several ways in which
> > an appeal can be initiated:
> >
> > * If 15 NCSG members, consisting of both organizational and
> > individual members, request such an appeal the NCSG Executive
> > Committee will first take the appeal under consideration.
> >
> > * If, after consideration of any documentation provided by those
> > making the appeal, the NCSG-EC does not reverse its decision,
> > the NCSG-EC and those making the appeal should attempt to
> > negotiate a mutually agreeable solution.
> >
> > * If the NCSG-EC and those making the appeal cannot reach a
> > mutually acceptable agreement on the decision within 30 days,
> > then an NCSG vote will be scheduled as soon as practicable.
> >
> > * For this type of appeal to succeed 60% of all of the NCSG
> > members must approve of the appeal in a full membership vote as
> > defined in section 4.0."
> >
> > So we need to take this under consideration.
> >
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>



-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160823/d1677121/attachment.html>


From joankerr  Tue Aug 23 18:50:21 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 11:50:21 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on
 the election process
In-Reply-To: <20160823153657.GA20031@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160823151523.GA18132@tarvainen.info>
	<20160823153657.GA20031@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CADwmshJHdptDEuxMGPMxeE_KicVv1a2PjQGz3bnSYewFG2DyZA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Tapani,

Yes, we need to dialogue and respond to concerns raised in the
communication.

Joan

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <
ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:

> So the next step is to take the appeal under our consideration.
>
> We obviously need to have a proper meeting.
>
> Are you all available tomorrow at 1300 UTC?
>
> Tapani
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 06:15:23PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
>
> > See attached.
> >
> > For reference, our charter says
> >
> > "Any decision of the NCSG-EC can be appealed by requesting a
> > full vote of the NCSG membership. There are several ways in which
> > an appeal can be initiated:
> >
> > * If 15 NCSG members, consisting of both organizational and
> > individual members, request such an appeal the NCSG Executive
> > Committee will first take the appeal under consideration.
> >
> > * If, after consideration of any documentation provided by those
> > making the appeal, the NCSG-EC does not reverse its decision,
> > the NCSG-EC and those making the appeal should attempt to
> > negotiate a mutually agreeable solution.
> >
> > * If the NCSG-EC and those making the appeal cannot reach a
> > mutually acceptable agreement on the decision within 30 days,
> > then an NCSG vote will be scheduled as soon as practicable.
> >
> > * For this type of appeal to succeed 60% of all of the NCSG
> > members must approve of the appeal in a full membership vote as
> > defined in section 4.0."
> >
> > So we need to take this under consideration.
> >
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160823/e84513b2/attachment.html>


From robin  Wed Aug 24 00:50:36 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:50:36 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the
	election process
In-Reply-To: <20160823153657.GA20031@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160823151523.GA18132@tarvainen.info>
	<20160823153657.GA20031@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <13E26964-AD58-4A0E-B605-13B76BE1BC20@ipjustice.org>

I am.  

Thanks,
Robin

> On Aug 23, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> So the next step is to take the appeal under our consideration.
> 
> We obviously need to have a proper meeting.
> 
> Are you all available tomorrow at 1300 UTC?
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 06:15:23PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
> 
>> See attached.
>> 
>> For reference, our charter says
>> 
>> "Any decision of the NCSG-EC can be appealed by requesting a
>> full vote of the NCSG membership. There are several ways in which
>> an appeal can be initiated:
>> 
>> * If 15 NCSG members, consisting of both organizational and
>> individual members, request such an appeal the NCSG Executive
>> Committee will first take the appeal under consideration.
>> 
>> * If, after consideration of any documentation provided by those
>> making the appeal, the NCSG-EC does not reverse its decision,
>> the NCSG-EC and those making the appeal should attempt to
>> negotiate a mutually agreeable solution.
>> 
>> * If the NCSG-EC and those making the appeal cannot reach a
>> mutually acceptable agreement on the decision within 30 days,
>> then an NCSG vote will be scheduled as soon as practicable.
>> 
>> * For this type of appeal to succeed 60% of all of the NCSG
>> members must approve of the appeal in a full membership vote as
>> defined in section 4.0."
>> 
>> So we need to take this under consideration.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
> 




From robin  Wed Aug 24 01:42:23 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 15:42:23 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Fwd: By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the election
	process
References: <AM3PR06MB4360AE2293D3989C9FBA5F4BFEB0@AM3PR06MB436.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <9734947B-7719-4C46-8C7A-D2E3C412137B@ipjustice.org>

Forwarded to NCSG EC list for consideration as requested.

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
> Date: August 23, 2016 at 3:20:33 PM PDT
> To: Neal McBurnett <neal at BCN.BOULDER.CO.US>, "NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> Cc: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: RE: By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the election process
> 
> This is very useful input and I hope that this is taken into account.
> Robin (cc'd) can I request you forward this mail to the NCSG EC list to ensure it's taken as an input into tomorrows meeting.
> 
> -James
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Neal McBurnett
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 11:17 PM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the election process
> 
> I've been focused on election integrity for more than a decade, and I have been involved in non-profit governance for a long time also, as well as this group and NCDNHC going back to the beginning, so this discussion is particularly interesting to me.
> 
> My advice at this point would be to use the opportunity of the meeting tomorrow to recognize that we need a fresh start on this particular election ballot.  To do otherwise would continue to lead to questions about how to interpret the results, since some people might not see new instructions on how NOTA will be interpreted.
> 
> It will also give the leadership a chance to come together on the way the ballot should be worded and interpreted.  That unity among the leadership should help us all come together around our goals and the hard-working volunteers that are each trying in their own way to move us forward.
> 
> As to the specifics, at this point, I think this is what I would recommend, though most any procedure that the leadership team agress with would be fine at this point from my perspective.
> 
> I hope that the new ballot simply lists NOTA as one option for each contest (rather than being separated out as an option for each candidate), and that the interpretation is that if NOTA is among the winners, that no candidate with less than the NOTA candidate will be seated, and another procedure would be used for filling the vacant seat.  But at this point I would be ok with just using the NOTA total as an indication of desire for improvement in candidates (which we don't seem to have an excess of - think about it folks...), as was done in at least one previous election.
> 
> In hope that we can all appreciate each other's perspectives, hard work, and remarkable unity around the many substantive Internet governance problems we are here to help solve,
> 
> Neal McBurnett                 http://neal.mcburnett.org/
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 02:49:48PM -0700, Robin Gross wrote:
>> Absolutely Paul.  Actually the two issues are inter-twined in this 
>> case, rather than being mutually exclusive issues.  When some members 
>> got their ballots, they expressed confusion about them, and how they 
>> are to be interpreted, etc.  The chair?s explanation of NOTA to this 
>> list caused further concern and confusion on what it means to cast a 
>> NOTA vote on the ballot.  The chair said that if you vote for one 
>> council candidate and also vote for NOTA, your vote will be invalided.  As in, your vote doesn?t count.  You can only accept all or none of the candidates under the chair?s interpretation of NOTA on this ballot.  That is the interpretation in question and raised in the petition by the group of 21 NCSG members.  The petition does a better job of explaining, so I?ll post the text below for clarity sake.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> **********
>> 
>> The undersigned NCSG Members challenge the decision of the NCSG 
>> Executive Committee to refuse to briefly postpone an annual election 
>> that is being held using a flawed ballot and that suffers from an inadequately supervised election process in violation of the NCSG?s Charter.
>> 
>> Without any notice to the membership or the Executive Committee, the 
>> NCSG Chair changed the longstanding interpretation of the election 
>> rules, causing confusion among the membership once the ballot was 
>> released. Once the confusion was explained, the Chair and the EC 
>> refused to stop the election or to issue a clarified ballot. Part of the rationale given by the NCSG Chair was that this was just a ?symbolic vote? since we had only 3 candidates for 3 Council seats. This is untrue, the mechanism summarily changed had allowed for a negative vote to be cast without needing to vote against a particular candidate or against all the candidates.
>> Without a new vote with clarified procedures and ballot, the election cannot be seen as legitimate.
>> 
>> The issue at stake is more than just a question of particular 
>> elections or particular version of a ballot. It is an issue of good 
>> governance and due process. The NCSG has been known for demanding 
>> transparency, accountability and good governance from ICANN. The 
>> suggestion of ?symbolic? elections with a confusing and disputed ballot undermines the whole concept of the NCSG and casts a shadow on its future activities. And it undermines ICANN?s multi?stakeholder model and its ability to deliver legitimate democratic processes for Internet governance.
>> 
>> Similarly, not addressing this problem now might lead to issues in the 
>> short?term and medium?to?long?term in the functioning of the NCSG and 
>> its councillors, which will not benefit the effectiveness of the stakeholder group. We therefore would like to see this concern addressed before continuing with the election.
>> 
>> Pursuant to Section 2.4.2.1 of NCSG?s Charter, the NCSG Members signed 
>> below hereby initiate an appeal of this NCSG EC decision to refuse to fix the contested ballots and properly clarify the election process before proceeding.
>> 
>> Member Signatures
>> 
>> 1. Avri Doria ? Individual Member
>> 
>> 2. James Gannon ? Individual Member
>> 
>> 3. Tatiana Tropina ? Individual Member
>> 
>> 4. Farzaneh Badii? Individual Member
>> 
>> 5. Stephanie Perrin ? Individual Member
>> 
>> 6. Robin Gross, IP Justice, Organizational Member
>> 
>> 7. Amr Elsadr, Individual Member
>> 
>> 8. Ayden F?rdeline, Individual Member
>> 
>> 9. Niels ten Oever, Article19, Organizational Member
>> 
>> 10. William Drake, Individual Member
>> 
>> 11. Anriette Esterhuysen, APC, Organizational Member
>> 
>> 12. Rachel Pollack Ichou ? Individual Member
>> 
>> 13. Milton Mueller, Internet Governance Project, Organizational Member
>> 
>> 14. Dan Krimm, Individual Member
>> 15. Stefania Milan, Individual Member
>> 16. Monika Zalnieriute, Individual Member
>> 
>> 17. David Cake, Electronic Frontiers Australia, Organizational Member
>> 
>> 18. Norbert Klein, Open Institute, Organizational Member 19. Michael 
>> Oghia, Individual Member 20. Kim von Arx, Individual Member
>> 
>> 21. DeeDee Halleck, Deep Dish Network
>> 
>> 
>> **********
>> 
>> 
>>    On Aug 23, 2016, at 1:26 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>    Robin
>> 
>>    Now I am confused. . I had thought the complaint was about the "confusing"  ballot. . Your note says it is about the Nota
>>    interpretation.  Can you clarify which it is? 
>> 
>>    Thanks
>> 
>>    --
>>    Paul Rosenzweig
>>    Sent from myMail app for Android
>> 
>>    Tuesday, 23 August 2016, 03:09PM -04:00 from Robin Gross robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG:
>> 
>> 
>>        It is unfortunate that what began as one careless out-of-bounds comment from the chair on this list yesterday has had the
>>        effect of disenfranchising every NCSG?s member?s right to vote for or against any candidate, but that is why the appeal had
>>        to be launched: to restore meaning to our votes.
>> 
>>        The entire NCSG Executive Committee is responsible for monitoring the elections, providing oversight to the election, and
>>        specifically overseeing the chair?s performance of executive functions under NCSG?s Charter.  Our charter is clear that it
>>        isn?t appropriate for the chair to unilaterally declare an interpretation of NOTA on this list - but it is especially
>>        disappointing that the interpretation provided renders every member?s vote for council meaningless.  Further concerning was
>>        the dismissive attitude displayed against those questioning his interpretation and the claim that NCSG elections are merely
>>        symbolic gestures.  But instead of fixing this unfortunate error, the chair seems to be digging in his heels on his
>>        interpretation of NOTA, which prevents members having the ability to vote for or against every candidate on the ballot.  It
>>        is the least democratic interpretation of NOTA possible. 
>> 
>>        No rationale has been provided by the chair as to why this interpretation is best for our members or how it serves our
>>        members? interest.  
>> 
>>        I brought this issue to the NCSG EC list yesterday and asked for a meeting to be scheduled so we could work through it.
>>         That request was denied and the chair said we?d use the email list to discus the issue instead, which is fine, except he
>>        declared the discussion closed within a few hours of opening it and before all the EC members could even wake-up to see the
>>        discussion let alone weigh in on this critical issue.
>> 
>>        As we face a new interpretation of NOTA that does not take democracy or elections seriously, but only as a symbolic
>>        gesture, where everyone who runs automatically gets a seat, irrespective of whether there is sufficient support from the
>>        members to be represented by that person, the group of 21 members lodged the formal appeal of this decision to try to get
>>        this election back on track and restore the voting rights of members.  Now that the appeal has been launched the chair is
>>        calling for an EC meeting tomorrow, so I am hopeful we can get this straightened out quickly.
>> 
>>        If we can accept the definition of NOTA as explained by Avri, Rafik, and myself, who were the previous EC Chairs and were
>>        involved in the drafting of the charter, an interpretation which provides members REAL choice, not merely symbolic gestures
>>        in our elections, we probably don?t need to redo the ballots for this year, and we can just continue with the understanding
>>        those candidates who receive less votes than NOTA are not elected this year.  So we can fix our ballots for next year, but
>>        use the NOTA interpretation which restores the right of members to approve (or not) of the candidates for this year.
>> 
>>        This seems to be to a reasonable compromise, which allows us go forward with the election now, but without the cloud of
>>        illegitimacy it will otherwise have if we use the new NOTA interpretation that disenfranchises our members.  Let?s find a
>>        constructive path forward and try to work cooperatively to fix this, not spend more time pointing fingers at each other,
>>        but in fixing this error.
>> 
>>        Thanks,
>>        Robin Gross
>>        NCSG Executive Committee Member
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>            On Aug 23, 2016, at 8:13 AM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
>> 
>>            Sam I suggest you read the letter from all 3 previous chairs of the NCSG to the current EC (which has been dismissed by
>>            the current chair) on that point:
>> 
>> 
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001083.html
>> 
>>            -James
>> 
>>            From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> on behalf of Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at YORKU.CA>
>>            Reply-To: Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at YORKU.CA>
>>            Date: Tuesday 23 August 2016 at 16:08
>>            To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>>            Subject: Re: By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the 
>> election process
>> 
>>            The Group of 21
>> 
>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160823/8dd87e2f/attachment-0001.html>


From Monika.Zalnieriute  Wed Aug 24 04:46:06 2016
From: Monika.Zalnieriute (Zalnieriute, Monika)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 01:46:06 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on
	the	election process
In-Reply-To: <13E26964-AD58-4A0E-B605-13B76BE1BC20@ipjustice.org>
References: <20160823151523.GA18132@tarvainen.info>
	<20160823153657.GA20031@tarvainen.info>,
	<13E26964-AD58-4A0E-B605-13B76BE1BC20@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB5567E32832BFFFD376D5CC1F6EA0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Dear All,


yes, I am available, just double checking whether 'tomorrow' is in fact 24th or 25th August?


Best wishes,


Monika


----

Dr. Monika Zalnieriute



Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I

Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu I
Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org I
Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I zephiroplatform.org I
Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I cihr.eu I









________________________________
From: EC-NCSG <ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> on behalf of Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:50 PM
To: Tapani Tarvainen
Cc: ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the election process

I am.

Thanks,
Robin

> On Aug 23, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>
> So the next step is to take the appeal under our consideration.
>
> We obviously need to have a proper meeting.
>
> Are you all available tomorrow at 1300 UTC?
>
> Tapani
>
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 06:15:23PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
>
>> See attached.
>>
>> For reference, our charter says
>>
>> "Any decision of the NCSG-EC can be appealed by requesting a
>> full vote of the NCSG membership. There are several ways in which
>> an appeal can be initiated:
>>
>> * If 15 NCSG members, consisting of both organizational and
>> individual members, request such an appeal the NCSG Executive
>> Committee will first take the appeal under consideration.
>>
>> * If, after consideration of any documentation provided by those
>> making the appeal, the NCSG-EC does not reverse its decision,
>> the NCSG-EC and those making the appeal should attempt to
>> negotiate a mutually agreeable solution.
>>
>> * If the NCSG-EC and those making the appeal cannot reach a
>> mutually acceptable agreement on the decision within 30 days,
>> then an NCSG vote will be scheduled as soon as practicable.
>>
>> * For this type of appeal to succeed 60% of all of the NCSG
>> members must approve of the appeal in a full membership vote as
>> defined in section 4.0."
>>
>> So we need to take this under consideration.
>>
>> --
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>


_______________________________________________
EC-NCSG mailing list
EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160824/9f205744/attachment.html>


From robin  Wed Aug 24 05:01:38 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2016 19:01:38 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the
	election process
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB5567E32832BFFFD376D5CC1F6EA0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20160823151523.GA18132@tarvainen.info>
	<20160823153657.GA20031@tarvainen.info>
	<13E26964-AD58-4A0E-B605-13B76BE1BC20@ipjustice.org>
	<DB3PR05MB5567E32832BFFFD376D5CC1F6EA0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <20E38DE4-3D0B-44B2-BEA3-0DFCC0E025B9@ipjustice.org>

I understand it to mean 24 August, but good idea for the request to confirm.  Thanks.

Best,
Robin

> On Aug 23, 2016, at 6:46 PM, Zalnieriute, Monika <Monika.Zalnieriute at EUI.eu> wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> yes, I am available, just double checking whether 'tomorrow' is in fact 24th or 25th August?
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Monika 
> 
> ----
> 
> Dr. Monika Zalnieriute
> 
> 
> Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au <http://law.unimelb.edu.au/> I
> Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu <http://cmds.ceu.edu/> I 
> Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org <http://icann.org/> I
> Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I zephiroplatform.org <http://zephiroplatform.org/> I
> Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I cihr.eu <http://cihr.eu/> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: EC-NCSG <ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> on behalf of Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:50 PM
> To: Tapani Tarvainen
> Cc: ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the election process
>  
> I am.  
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> > On Aug 23, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> > 
> > So the next step is to take the appeal under our consideration.
> > 
> > We obviously need to have a proper meeting.
> > 
> > Are you all available tomorrow at 1300 UTC?
> > 
> > Tapani
> > 
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 06:15:23PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
> > 
> >> See attached.
> >> 
> >> For reference, our charter says
> >> 
> >> "Any decision of the NCSG-EC can be appealed by requesting a
> >> full vote of the NCSG membership. There are several ways in which
> >> an appeal can be initiated:
> >> 
> >> * If 15 NCSG members, consisting of both organizational and
> >> individual members, request such an appeal the NCSG Executive
> >> Committee will first take the appeal under consideration.
> >> 
> >> * If, after consideration of any documentation provided by those
> >> making the appeal, the NCSG-EC does not reverse its decision,
> >> the NCSG-EC and those making the appeal should attempt to
> >> negotiate a mutually agreeable solution.
> >> 
> >> * If the NCSG-EC and those making the appeal cannot reach a
> >> mutually acceptable agreement on the decision within 30 days,
> >> then an NCSG vote will be scheduled as soon as practicable.
> >> 
> >> * For this type of appeal to succeed 60% of all of the NCSG
> >> members must approve of the appeal in a full membership vote as
> >> defined in section 4.0."
> >> 
> >> So we need to take this under consideration.
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Tapani Tarvainen
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > EC-NCSG mailing list
> > EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>  
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160823/bf2067c5/attachment-0001.html>


From ncsg  Wed Aug 24 06:47:28 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 06:47:28 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the
 election process
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB5567E32832BFFFD376D5CC1F6EA0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20160823151523.GA18132@tarvainen.info>
	<20160823153657.GA20031@tarvainen.info>
	<13E26964-AD58-4A0E-B605-13B76BE1BC20@ipjustice.org>
	<DB3PR05MB5567E32832BFFFD376D5CC1F6EA0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <20160824034728.GA3086@tarvainen.info>

I meant 24 August, i.e., today. Short notice, I know, but time is short.

As I will be traveling, tomorrow (25 August) I could manage only
morning (before noon) UTC and after that only next week.

Tapani

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 01:46:06AM +0000, Zalnieriute, Monika (Monika.Zalnieriute at EUI.eu) wrote:

> Dear All,
> 
> 
> yes, I am available, just double checking whether 'tomorrow' is in fact 24th or 25th August?
> 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> 
> Monika
> 
> 
> ----
> 
> Dr. Monika Zalnieriute
> 
> 
> 
> Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I
> 
> Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu I
> Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org I
> Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I zephiroplatform.org I
> Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I cihr.eu I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: EC-NCSG <ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> on behalf of Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 9:50 PM
> To: Tapani Tarvainen
> Cc: ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the election process
> 
> I am.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> > On Aug 23, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> >
> > So the next step is to take the appeal under our consideration.
> >
> > We obviously need to have a proper meeting.
> >
> > Are you all available tomorrow at 1300 UTC?
> >
> > Tapani



From ncsg  Wed Aug 24 06:57:25 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 06:57:25 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the election process
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB5567E32832BFFFD376D5CC1F6EA0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20160823151523.GA18132@tarvainen.info>
	<20160823153657.GA20031@tarvainen.info>
	<13E26964-AD58-4A0E-B605-13B76BE1BC20@ipjustice.org>
	<DB3PR05MB5567E32832BFFFD376D5CC1F6EA0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <20160824035725.GB3086@tarvainen.info>

Dear all,

While I still haven't heard from all of our members if we can have a
call today, there are some preliminary steps we can do by mail.
And in case we can't hold a meeting today after all, we could
try discuss the issue by email as well.

Key question here is the asserted longstanding practice.

So, I intend to ask the appealants for documentation supporting their
claim. Mailing list archives, old ballots, anything actually dating
from the time of previous elections that would support the claim.

That should help us move forward.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From ncsg  Wed Aug 24 07:30:55 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 07:30:55 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the election
	process
Message-ID: <20160824043055.GD3086@tarvainen.info>

I just sent the message below. It didn't make it to the list because
of a technical limitation, so I'm sending it separately.

Tapani

----- Forwarded message from Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> -----

Subject: Re: By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the election process
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 07:24:39 +0300
From: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
To: Avri Doria, James Gannon, Tatiana Tropina,
	Farzaneh Badii, Stephanie Perrin, Robin Gross, Amr Elsadr,
	Ayden Ferdeline, Niels ten Oever,
	William Drake, Anriette Esterhausen,
	Rachel Pollack, Milton Mueller, Dan Krimm,
	Stefania Milan, Monika Zalnieriute,
	David Cake, Norbert Klein,
	Michael Oghia, Kim von Arx, DeeDee Halleck
Cc: NCSG EC <ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org>

Dear appealants,

In preparation of Executive Committee meeting discussing your appeal,
I would respectfully request you to provide documentation supporting
your case, in particular the asserted longstanding interpretation of
the election rules.

Any relevant documentation at all would be welcome - archived mailing
list discussions from the time of previous elections, old ballots,
anything you think we should take into consideration.

Given the urgency of the issue I do not expect you to collect and send
everything at once, you will be welcome to send additional documents
later, but anything you can send quickly would help in resolving
your appeal quickly.

Thank you.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen
NCSG Chair


On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:44:42AM -0400, avri doria (avri at acm.org) wrote:
> 
> NCSG colleagues,
> 
> *Pursuant to Section 2.4.2.1 of NCSG?s Charter, the NCSG Members
> signed***in the enclosed***hereby initiate an appeal of the NCSG EC
> decision to refuse to fix the contested ballots and properly clarify the
> election process before proceeding.*
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Avri Doria
> 
> on behalf of the 21 members who signed the appeal*
> ***
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

----- End forwarded message -----



From ncsg  Wed Aug 24 11:33:25 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 11:33:25 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Meeting today at 1300
In-Reply-To: <20160823153657.GA20031@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160823151523.GA18132@tarvainen.info>
	<20160823153657.GA20031@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <20160824083325.GD31098@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>

Just confirming, all seem to be available, so we'll have
a call today at 1300 UTC.

Agenda:

* The appeal about elections.
* AOB.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen




From maryam.bakoshi  Wed Aug 24 15:03:49 2016
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 12:03:49 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG EC Meeting
Message-ID: <59B360E1-E084-4223-9145-AD2B2E4FA526@icann.org>

Dear all,

Please find below participation details for the NCSG ExCom call today 24 August 2016 at 13:00 UTC


Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/

Many thanks,

Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC & NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

E: Maryam.bakoshi at icann.org
S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann
T: +44 7737698036




From Monika.Zalnieriute  Wed Aug 24 16:13:16 2016
From: Monika.Zalnieriute (Zalnieriute, Monika)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 13:13:16 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG EC Meeting
In-Reply-To: <59B360E1-E084-4223-9145-AD2B2E4FA526@icann.org>
References: <59B360E1-E084-4223-9145-AD2B2E4FA526@icann.org>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB55681E5F5A30BAE87AC02D5F6EA0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Bills e-mail, below here:



Hi

This discussion has gotten a little overheated and hydra-headed with stuff being thrown into the pot that distracts from the single issue in contention.  Let?s not over-dramatize this, we?re not at war with each other, we don?t need to throw up our hands or rewrite the whole NCSG charter because of this, etc.  We just have a collegial disagreement on one thing, which is the interpretation of NOTA, and how this is determined, and we ought to be able to work it out together.

Tapani?s dig through list archives was helpful, but a narrow reading of a few messages obscures more than enlightens.  Yes, in 2011 when we were working out the charter, Avri did suggest at one point that for convenience we could just ?skip? any NOTA votes http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ncsg-discuss;73975b96.1110.  But in same message, she also agreed with Dan that NOTA "gets treated as a kind of additional candidate itself,? and that, "Voting for 'none of the above' is explicit and is counted."  Similarly, in a subsequent message http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1110&L=ncsg-discuss&D=0&P=118428 she repeats, "As you said 'none' is just one 'candidate' among the others. Nothing fancy. No cancellation of a person's vote.?  Nobody disagreed, so that was it, the shared interpretation was that NOTA is an individual candidate, and that ticking NOTA doesn?t cancel one?s votes for all candidates.  Her ?skipping? suggest never became relevant, as we didn?t imagine NOTA ever beating anyone, so the idea wasn?t discussed further.

We never had any reason to revisit and reinterpret the meaning of NOTA.  Hence, when Robin and Rafik chaired, they too operated on the same assumptions?it?s a candidate, it is counted, and it does not cancel out any other votes cast, just like in many other elections around the world.  And it wasn?t just the chairs who thought this, it was the other members who have been actually involved in doing the substantive work of NCSG, the kind of people signed the hastily assembled appeal letter, all of whom have been in fairly constant communication with each other in the years since.  So there has in fact been a shared understanding, which is reflected in the chair?s Monday letter about "NCSG's Longstanding Interpretation of NOTA.?  http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001083.html  That subsequent ballots did not explain the meaning anew each time NOTA was included, and that in 2013 NOTA somehow got left off the ballot, is in retrospect rather unfortunate, but then we never imagined a controversy over the matter.  Either way, these oversights do not in any way mean that the chairs and others did not know what NOTA meant, or that they did not believe what they say they believed and would not have acted accordingly if NOTA had ever won, which it didn't.  I am absolutely astonished that anyone would question whether the chairs? statements about their understandings was ?accurate,? especially people who were not involved and doing any of this work.  It is more than a little presumptuous.  The chairs and other deeply involved colleagues are not slow, confused children.

It is in this context that we were all rather taken aback when Tapani unilaterally announced without warning a completely opposite interpretation of NOTA:

On Aug 22, 2016, at 15:58, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:

If you want to vote for any candidates for council you cannot
simultaneously vote for NOTA. If you do, your ballot will be
considered invalid.

and added,

On Aug 22, 2016, at 18:33, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info<mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>> wrote:

I do see some people want to be able to cast negative votes so to
speak and think NOTA is the way it could be done, but I don't agree
with that.

I?m sorry, but with all due respect it is not the prerogative of the chair to decide by himself without any consultation that the way we have done things since 2011 is no good anymore simply because it wasn?t all spelled out and tidy in prior ballots.  If the argument is ?well there?s nothing formally written that says NOTA means X,? how can that be interpreted as a mandate for the chair to decide without discussion that it now means Y?  I cannot understand this thinking, nor can I recall another instance in the history of NCSG and NCUC (no idea about NPOC) where the chair took it upon himself to ?overrule? people and impose his/her own preferences.  We are volunteers who are here to be coordinated and facilitated, not ruled.

The Charter says

2.1 The NCSG chair is responsible for carrying out the executive functions of the NCSG under the NCSG-EC's oversight according to ICANN, GNSO and NCSG mission and principles.

2.4.2. By default NCSGEC decisions are made by full consensus of all NCSGEC members. Full consensus means that no NCSGEC members have objected to the proposed decision. Any exception to this default will be approved by the NCSGEC on a full consensus basis.

4.2  All NCSG votes will be held using an online voting system to be determined, approved and supervised by the NCSG EC

The Charter is crystal clear here.  These things did not happen before the ballot was sent out and must happen now, full stop.  Especially if the meaning of the ballot is to be changed.

Finally, it?s been asked why does the appeal letter refer to a ?flawed ballot? when, as Kathy has noted, the ballot this year and last year were essentially the same.  The answer is that the ballot is currently flawed due to the interpretation given it by the chair, which is contrary to past practice and has caused confusion.  But there is a simple solution that would not require a new ballot be designed and sent:

On Aug 23, 2016, at 21:09, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:

If we can accept the definition of NOTA as explained by Avri, Rafik, and myself, who were the previous EC Chairs and were involved in the drafting of the charter, an interpretation which provides members REAL choice, not merely symbolic gestures in our elections, we probably don?t need to redo the ballots for this year, and we can just continue with the understanding those candidates who receive less votes than NOTA are not elected this year.  So we can fix our ballots for next year, but use the NOTA interpretation which restores the right of members to approve (or not) of the candidates for this year.

All we need is for the Chair to accept that as there was no EC agreement to the contrary, the long-standing interpretation of NOTA stands.   Anyone who wants to revote in light of this clarification can do so by going to the URL they received. Subsequently, the EC can propose whatever language it wants in order to clarify NOTA for the next election.

Please let?s get out of this downward spiral, which absolutely did not have to happen.  It is not going to affect the outcome of the vote as it?s very unlikely anyone would actually lose to NOTA, but people do need to be able to express their preferences in an election.

Thanks

Bill


----

Dr. Monika Zalnieriute



Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I

Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu I
Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org I
Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I zephiroplatform.org I
Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I cihr.eu I









________________________________
From: EC-NCSG <ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> on behalf of Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 12:03 PM
To: Ec-NCSG mail list
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG EC Meeting

Dear all,

Please find below participation details for the NCSG ExCom call today 24 August 2016 at 13:00 UTC


Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/

Many thanks,

Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC & NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

E: Maryam.bakoshi at icann.org
S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann
T: +44 7737698036


_______________________________________________
EC-NCSG mailing list
EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160824/36b2ddc4/attachment-0001.html>


From director-general  Wed Aug 24 16:08:26 2016
From: director-general (Dorothy K. Gordon)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 13:08:26 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG EC Meeting
In-Reply-To: <33013883.8691472043796627.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh>
Message-ID: <25710200.8741472044106451.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh>

I totally agree with Bill's mail.  Let us settle this amicably and focus on more substantive matters.  I do not believe that it would have affected the outcome of the vote anyway.

best

Dorothy K. Gordon
Director-General
Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT
Mobile: 233 265005712
Direct Line: 233 302 683579
Website: www.aiti-kace.com.gh
Encrypt Everything - https://gpgtools.org https://silentcircle.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Monika Zalnieriute" <Monika.Zalnieriute at EUI.eu>
To: "Maryam Bakoshi" <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>, "Ec-NCSG mail list" <ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
Sent: Wednesday, 24 August, 2016 1:13:16 PM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / Monrovia
Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] NCSG EC Meeting





Bills e-mail, below here: 







Hi 


This discussion has gotten a little overheated and hydra-headed with stuff being thrown into the pot that distracts from the single issue in contention. Let?s not over-dramatize this, we?re not at war with each other, we don?t need to throw up our hands or rewrite the whole NCSG charter because of this, etc. We just have a collegial disagreement on one thing, which is the interpretation of NOTA, and how this is determined, and we ought to be able to work it out together. 


Tapani?s dig through list archives was helpful, but a narrow reading of a few messages obscures more than enlightens. Yes, in 2011 when we were working out the charter, Avri did suggest at one point that for convenience we could just ?skip? any NOTA votes http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ncsg-discuss;73975b96.1110 . But in same message, she also agreed with Dan that NOTA "gets treated as a kind of additional candidate itself,? and that, "Voting for 'none of the above' is explicit and is counted." Similarly, in a subsequent message http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1110&L=ncsg-discuss&D=0&P=118428 she repeats, "As you said 'none' is just one 'candidate' among the others. Nothing fancy. No cancellation of a person's vote.? Nobody disagreed, so that was it, the shared interpretation was that NOTA is an individual candidate, and that ticking NOTA doesn?t cancel one?s votes for all candidates. Her ?skipping? suggest never became relevant, as we didn?t imagine NOTA ever beating anyone, so the idea wasn?t discussed further. 


We never had any reason to revisit and reinterpret the meaning of NOTA. Hence, when Robin and Rafik chaired, they too operated on the same assumptions?it?s a candidate, it is counted, and it does not cancel out any other votes cast, just like in many other elections around the world. And it wasn?t just the chairs who thought this, it was the other members who have been actually involved in doing the substantive work of NCSG, the kind of people signed the hastily assembled appeal letter, all of whom have been in fairly constant communication with each other in the years since. So there has in fact been a shared understanding, which is reflected in the chair?s Monday letter about "NCSG's Longstanding Interpretation of NOTA.? http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001083.html That subsequent ballots did not explain the meaning anew each time NOTA was included, and that in 2013 NOTA somehow got left off the ballot, is in retrospect rather unfortunate, but then we never imagined a controversy over the matter. Either way, these oversights do not in any way mean that the chairs and others did not know what NOTA meant, or that they did not believe what they say they believed and would not have acted accordingly if NOTA had ever won, which it didn't. I am absolutely astonished that anyone would question whether the chairs? statements about their understandings was ?accurate,? especially people who were not involved and doing any of this work. It is more than a little presumptuous. The chairs and other deeply involved colleagues are not slow, confused children. 


It is in this context that we were all rather taken aback when Tapani unilaterally announced without warning a completely opposite interpretation of NOTA: 





On Aug 22, 2016, at 15:58, Tapani Tarvainen < ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info > wrote: 

If you want to vote for any candidates for council you cannot 
simultaneously vote for NOTA. If you do, your ballot will be 
considered invalid. 



and added, 





On Aug 22, 2016, at 18:33, Tapani Tarvainen < ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info > wrote: 

I do see some people want to be able to cast negative votes so to 
speak and think NOTA is the way it could be done, but I don't agree 
with that. 



I?m sorry, but with all due respect it is not the prerogative of the chair to decide by himself without any consultation that the way we have done things since 2011 is no good anymore simply because it wasn?t all spelled out and tidy in prior ballots. If the argument is ?well there?s nothing formally written that says NOTA means X,? how can that be interpreted as a mandate for the chair to decide without discussion that it now means Y? I cannot understand this thinking, nor can I recall another instance in the history of NCSG and NCUC (no idea about NPOC) where the chair took it upon himself to ?overrule? people and impose his/her own preferences. We are volunteers who are here to be coordinated and facilitated, not ruled. 


The Charter says 


2.1 The NCSG chair is responsible for carrying out the executive functions of the NCSG under the NCSG-EC's oversight according to ICANN, GNSO and NCSG mission and principles. 


2.4.2. By default NCSGEC decisions are made by full consensus of all NCSGEC members. Full consensus means that no NCSGEC members have objected to the proposed decision. Any exception to this default will be approved by the NCSGEC on a full consensus basis. 


4.2 All NCSG votes will be held using an online voting system to be determined, approved and supervised by the NCSG EC 


The Charter is crystal clear here. These things did not happen before the ballot was sent out and must happen now, full stop. Especially if the meaning of the ballot is to be changed. 


Finally, it?s been asked why does the appeal letter refer to a ?flawed ballot? when, as Kathy has noted, the ballot this year and last year were essentially the same. The answer is that the ballot is currently flawed due to the interpretation given it by the chair, which is contrary to past practice and has caused confusion. But t here is a simple solution that would not require a new ballot be designed and sent: 







On Aug 23, 2016, at 21:09, Robin Gross < robin at ipjustice.org > wrote: 


If we can accept the definition of NOTA as explained by Avri, Rafik, and myself, who were the previous EC Chairs and were involved in the drafting of the charter, an interpretation which provides members REAL choice, not merely symbolic gestures in our elections, we probably don?t need to redo the ballots for this year, and we can just continue with the understanding those candidates who receive less votes than NOTA are not elected this year. So we can fix our ballots for next year, but use the NOTA interpretation which restores the right of members to approve (or not) of the candidates for this year. 






All we need is for the Chair to accept that as there was no EC agreement to the contrary, the long-standing interpretation of NOTA stands. Anyone who wants to revote in light of this clarification can do so by going to the URL they received. Subsequently, the EC can propose whatever language it wants in order to clarify NOTA for the next election. 


Please let?s get out of this downward spiral, which absolutely did not have to happen. It is not going to affect the outcome of the vote as it?s very unlikely anyone would actually lose to NOTA, but people do need to be able to express their preferences in an election. 


Thanks 


Bill 















---- 


Dr. Monika Zalnieriute 








Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I 

Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu I 

Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org I 

Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I zephiroplatform.org I 

Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I cihr.eu I 





















From: EC-NCSG <ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> on behalf of Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 12:03 PM 
To: Ec-NCSG mail list 
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG EC Meeting 

Dear all, 

Please find below participation details for the NCSG ExCom call today 24 August 2016 at 13:00 UTC 


Adobe Connect: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ncsg/ 

Many thanks, 

Maryam Bakoshi 
Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC & NPOC 
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

E: Maryam.bakoshi at icann.org 
S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann 
T: +44 7737698036 


_______________________________________________ 
EC-NCSG mailing list 
EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org 
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg 





The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. 
_______________________________________________
EC-NCSG mailing list
EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg



From ncsg  Wed Aug 24 20:15:22 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 20:15:22 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Open issue: all candidates+nota
Message-ID: <20160824171522.GC22808@tarvainen.info>

This case was left open in the call.

I recall Monika arguing for simply invalidating such a ballot,
indeed explicitly having it as a way to invalidate one's ballot
if someone wants to.

Glen offered notifying such voters so they could vote again
in case it was a mistake.

I rather tend to agree with Monika, but could easily be
persuaded either way. If we want to have Glen do that
we'd have to decide how many times and how close to the
deadline it'd be done - how persistent someone would
have to be to have their ballot invalidated.

Maybe just one note and if that's ignored, then assume
it was deliberate. We could instruct Glen to phrase
the note in such a way that it makes this clear.

Tapani

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:59:15PM -0400, Sam Lanfranco (lanfran at YORKU.CA) wrote:

> I agree that this is how it is now supposed to work, but what happens if
> someone votes for all candidates, and NOTA?

In that case the vote is invalid.

Technically it would apparently be possible to notify the voter of
this situation and ask him or her to vote again. We discussed this but
didn't decide if that should be done, as time ran out.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen

----- End forwarded message -----



From encantarg  Thu Aug 25 01:43:48 2016
From: encantarg (Form Notifications)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 22:43:48 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Application: Form submissions detected
Message-ID: <001a1143e6dcb93d97053ad90360@google.com>



<p><i>Form Notifications</i> (a Google Forms add-on) has detected that the  
form
titled <a  
href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uPzS7nxQkGgndirN8JM_E067DXz42uXWKcBClxAd4KY/edit"><b>  
NCSG Membership Application</b></a> has received
194 responses so far.</p>

<p><a  
href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cRLoUkoLC_Kelf7440HBGLxpaMThrRMrSuVrBWqM2bo/edit?usp=drivesdk">Response  
sheet</a></p>
<p><a  
href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uPzS7nxQkGgndirN8JM_E067DXz42uXWKcBClxAd4KY/viewanalytics">Summary  
of form responses</a></p>

<p>You are receiving this email because an editor of this form configured
<i>Form Notifications</i> to alert you every time this form receives
<b>1</b> responses.</p>

<p>To change this setting, or to stop receiving these notifications, have  
the
form owner or editors open the form and adjust the <i>Form Notifications</i>
add-on configuration via the "Configure notifications" menu item.</p>

<hr>

<p style="font-size:80%">This automatic message was sent to you via the  
<i>Form
Notifications</i> add-on for Google Forms.
Form Notifications was created as an sample add-on, and is meant for  
demonstration purposes only. It should not be used for complex or important  
workflows. The number of notifications this add-on produces are limited by  
the owner&#39;s available email quota; it will not send email notifications  
if the owner&#39;s daily email quota has been exceeded. Collaborators using  
this add-on on the same form will be able to adjust the notification  
settings, but will not be able to disable the notification triggers set by  
other collaborators.</p>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160824/d8094fa8/attachment.html>


From ncsg  Thu Aug 25 11:11:02 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:11:02 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Open issue: all candidates+nota
In-Reply-To: <20160824171522.GC22808@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160824171522.GC22808@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <20160825081102.GA7928@tarvainen.info>

Dear all,

After sleeping over it and seeing the comments on the list,
I find myself in agreement with Monika and suggest we'll
drop the idea of contacting voters in this case.

You will recall that yesterday we told Glen to hold it
until further instructions, so unless we decide we want
her to send such notices and tell her so it will not happen.

Tapani

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 08:15:22PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:

> This case was left open in the call.
> 
> I recall Monika arguing for simply invalidating such a ballot,
> indeed explicitly having it as a way to invalidate one's ballot
> if someone wants to.
> 
> Glen offered notifying such voters so they could vote again
> in case it was a mistake.
> 
> I rather tend to agree with Monika, but could easily be
> persuaded either way. If we want to have Glen do that
> we'd have to decide how many times and how close to the
> deadline it'd be done - how persistent someone would
> have to be to have their ballot invalidated.
> 
> Maybe just one note and if that's ignored, then assume
> it was deliberate. We could instruct Glen to phrase
> the note in such a way that it makes this clear.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:59:15PM -0400, Sam Lanfranco (lanfran at YORKU.CA) wrote:
> 
> > I agree that this is how it is now supposed to work, but what happens if
> > someone votes for all candidates, and NOTA?
> 
> In that case the vote is invalid.
> 
> Technically it would apparently be possible to notify the voter of
> this situation and ask him or her to vote again. We discussed this but
> didn't decide if that should be done, as time ran out.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> 



From ncsg  Thu Aug 25 11:16:40 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:16:40 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Traveling
Message-ID: <20160825081640.GB7928@tarvainen.info>

FYI, I will be traveling and mostly offline (unreliable phone access
only) from this afternoon (leaving in about 2 hours) until Sunday.

In a real emergency I can be best reached by calling +358 40 729 3479
(SMS should also work but not as reliably).

In the meantime, if you think additional voting instructions or
explanations are needed, I trust you can take care of them without me.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From Monika.Zalnieriute  Thu Aug 25 11:18:28 2016
From: Monika.Zalnieriute (Zalnieriute, Monika)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:18:28 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Open issue: all candidates+nota
In-Reply-To: <20160825081102.GA7928@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160824171522.GC22808@tarvainen.info>,
	<20160825081102.GA7928@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB55615042982ABC742E71942F6ED0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Dear All,


I am not aware that we have agreed to contact any voters to 'double check' if they voted the way they wanted or if it was not a mistake. I would also like to highlight the potential problems with anonymity of voting because in case voters are contacted to double check if they voted that/this way and if that was their intention.


It seems to me that this is against the core idea of democratic voting, which should be anonymous. I alsredy have strong feelings about us being able to identfy the individuals based on ballot ID. This is not ok.


Well, in any elections people HAVE A RIGHT to invalidate and spoil their vote. This is a right, and this is how their chose to exercise their right to vote, should they wish so.


Best wishes,


Monika




----

Dr. Monika Zalnieriute



Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I

Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu I
Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org I
Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I zephiroplatform.org I
Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I cihr.eu I









________________________________
From: EC-NCSG <ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> on behalf of Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 8:11 AM
To: ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] Open issue: all candidates+nota

Dear all,

After sleeping over it and seeing the comments on the list,
I find myself in agreement with Monika and suggest we'll
drop the idea of contacting voters in this case.

You will recall that yesterday we told Glen to hold it
until further instructions, so unless we decide we want
her to send such notices and tell her so it will not happen.

Tapani

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 08:15:22PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:

> This case was left open in the call.
>
> I recall Monika arguing for simply invalidating such a ballot,
> indeed explicitly having it as a way to invalidate one's ballot
> if someone wants to.
>
> Glen offered notifying such voters so they could vote again
> in case it was a mistake.
>
> I rather tend to agree with Monika, but could easily be
> persuaded either way. If we want to have Glen do that
> we'd have to decide how many times and how close to the
> deadline it'd be done - how persistent someone would
> have to be to have their ballot invalidated.
>
> Maybe just one note and if that's ignored, then assume
> it was deliberate. We could instruct Glen to phrase
> the note in such a way that it makes this clear.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:59:15PM -0400, Sam Lanfranco (lanfran at YORKU.CA) wrote:
>
> > I agree that this is how it is now supposed to work, but what happens if
> > someone votes for all candidates, and NOTA?
>
> In that case the vote is invalid.
>
> Technically it would apparently be possible to notify the voter of
> this situation and ask him or her to vote again. We discussed this but
> didn't decide if that should be done, as time ran out.
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>

_______________________________________________
EC-NCSG mailing list
EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160825/b5ee4fd0/attachment-0001.html>


From pileleji  Thu Aug 25 14:50:08 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:50:08 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
Message-ID: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Colleagues,

Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I just
read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to the
appeal made.  I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we resolved
it accordingly.

So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails etc in
a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this respond to
Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as its
resolved, but we need to respond as EC.  I hope all concur with my comment
on this.

Thank you

Poncelet



-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160825/1e7e4e51/attachment.html>


From director-general  Thu Aug 25 14:36:40 2016
From: director-general (Dorothy K. Gordon)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:36:40 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <307342428.416.1472126446720.JavaMail.dorothykgordon@Dorothys-Air>

Thanks Poncelet, by the way I am on the EC?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Poncelet Ileleji" <pileleji at ymca.gm>
To: "NCSG EC" <ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 11:50:08 AM
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance







Hello Colleagues, 

Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to the appeal made. I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we resolved it accordingly. 

So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as its resolved, but we need to respond as EC. I hope all concur with my comment on this. 

Thank you 

Poncelet 








-- 





Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS 
Coordinator 
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio 
MDI Road Kanifing South 
P. O. Box 421 Banjul 
The Gambia, West Africa 
Tel: (220) 4370240 
Fax:(220) 4390793 
Cell:(220) 9912508 
Skype: pons_utd 
www.ymca.gm 
http://jokkolabs.net/en/ 
www.waigf.org 
www,insistglobal.com 
www.npoc.org 
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 
www.diplointernetgovernance.org 





_______________________________________________
EC-NCSG mailing list
EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg



From pileleji  Thu Aug 25 15:12:33 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:12:33 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <307342428.416.1472126446720.JavaMail.dorothykgordon@Dorothys-Air>
References: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<307342428.416.1472126446720.JavaMail.dorothykgordon@Dorothys-Air>
Message-ID: <CAEux40vZ941U+2EhnY8REtGGF74=gL2_e=3Ej-XN+Zr02yx9mA@mail.gmail.com>

Noted with Thanks Dorothy,

Much appreciated.

Thank you

Poncelet

On 25 August 2016 at 11:36, Dorothy K. Gordon <
director-general at aiti-kace.com.gh> wrote:

> Thanks Poncelet, by the way I am on the EC?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Poncelet Ileleji" <pileleji at ymca.gm>
> To: "NCSG EC" <ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 11:50:08 AM
> Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello Colleagues,
>
> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I just
> read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to the
> appeal made. I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we resolved
> it accordingly.
>
> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails etc
> in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this respond
> to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as its
> resolved, but we need to respond as EC. I hope all concur with my comment
> on this.
>
> Thank you
>
> Poncelet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
> www.ymca.gm
> http://jokkolabs.net/en/
> www.waigf.org
> www,insistglobal.com
> www.npoc.org
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>



-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160825/2398dc6b/attachment.html>


From joankerr  Thu Aug 25 15:20:20 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:20:20 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Open issue: all candidates+nota
In-Reply-To: <20160825081102.GA7928@tarvainen.info>
References: <20160824171522.GC22808@tarvainen.info>
	<20160825081102.GA7928@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CADwmshJUwB=Ygk9x+AOHWbTLU0zuPmdtuYqu9cPUqBrPfpMO1w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Everyone,

I agree that the people who have already voted should not be contacted.

Joan

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 4:11 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <
ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> After sleeping over it and seeing the comments on the list,
> I find myself in agreement with Monika and suggest we'll
> drop the idea of contacting voters in this case.
>
> You will recall that yesterday we told Glen to hold it
> until further instructions, so unless we decide we want
> her to send such notices and tell her so it will not happen.
>
> Tapani
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 08:15:22PM +0300, Tapani Tarvainen (
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:
>
> > This case was left open in the call.
> >
> > I recall Monika arguing for simply invalidating such a ballot,
> > indeed explicitly having it as a way to invalidate one's ballot
> > if someone wants to.
> >
> > Glen offered notifying such voters so they could vote again
> > in case it was a mistake.
> >
> > I rather tend to agree with Monika, but could easily be
> > persuaded either way. If we want to have Glen do that
> > we'd have to decide how many times and how close to the
> > deadline it'd be done - how persistent someone would
> > have to be to have their ballot invalidated.
> >
> > Maybe just one note and if that's ignored, then assume
> > it was deliberate. We could instruct Glen to phrase
> > the note in such a way that it makes this clear.
> >
> > Tapani
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 12:59:15PM -0400, Sam Lanfranco (
> lanfran at YORKU.CA) wrote:
> >
> > > I agree that this is how it is now supposed to work, but what happens
> if
> > > someone votes for all candidates, and NOTA?
> >
> > In that case the vote is invalid.
> >
> > Technically it would apparently be possible to notify the voter of
> > this situation and ask him or her to vote again. We discussed this but
> > didn't decide if that should be done, as time ran out.
> >
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> >
> > ----- End forwarded message -----
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160825/b4a06bfe/attachment-0001.html>


From joankerr  Thu Aug 25 15:31:09 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:31:09 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <307342428.416.1472126446720.JavaMail.dorothykgordon@Dorothys-Air>
References: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<307342428.416.1472126446720.JavaMail.dorothykgordon@Dorothys-Air>
Message-ID: <CADwmshJWeDEs1gMr8Re1vLg4WqA1OoubW=VU14MXvfqdrTYbTg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

I agree and support Poncelet's suggestion.
Joan

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 7:36 AM, Dorothy K. Gordon <
director-general at aiti-kace.com.gh> wrote:

> Thanks Poncelet, by the way I am on the EC?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Poncelet Ileleji" <pileleji at ymca.gm>
> To: "NCSG EC" <ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 11:50:08 AM
> Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hello Colleagues,
>
> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I just
> read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to the
> appeal made. I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we resolved
> it accordingly.
>
> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails etc
> in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this respond
> to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as its
> resolved, but we need to respond as EC. I hope all concur with my comment
> on this.
>
> Thank you
>
> Poncelet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
> www.ymca.gm
> http://jokkolabs.net/en/
> www.waigf.org
> www,insistglobal.com
> www.npoc.org
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160825/97115540/attachment.html>


From robin  Thu Aug 25 18:42:46 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:42:46 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <17BEF5FA-BA82-4F3C-977F-88EE1443DA90@ipjustice.org>

Hello Colleagues,

Yes, under the charter, it is the committee?s job to respond to the appeal.  Since the EC did not reverse the decision to continue with the ongoing election, and instead decided to propose a compromise solution that would allow the election to go forward, but with NOTA counting, we are supposed to communicate that decision to the appellants in writing, and ask if they will accept our compromise, thus withdrawing their appeal.  Although I haven?t received confirmation from all 21 appellants yet, I do expect this proposed compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the appeal to be immediately withdrawn.

The charter specifically requires that we document these appeal discussions thoroughly.  ?All formal discussions related to the appeal will be done in a transparent manner and be both recorded and have transcripts made.  All documentation related to the appeal, including transcript of formal discussions, will be collected on a public website associated with the NCSG and will be retained for a minimum of 4 years.? (Section 2.4.2.1)

As I do expect the EC?s compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the appeal withdrawn, the EC should not have to go into the extended negotiations to work out a mutually agreeable solution, followed by the membership vote as outlined in the charter.

We should send our official compromise proposal to the appellants as soon as possible so the ongoing election is no longer in question of being suspended.  Obviously this official committee response to the appellants must be text that is approved of by the EC as a whole in advance of of it being sent on the EC?s behalf.  I would strongly object to the chair taking it upon himself to undertake this committee task without permitting oversight by the committee as is required in the charter and has been requested by the members.  This critical work is charged to the committee as a whole and needs to be done by the entire committee.

So a simple and short communication to the appellants officially communicating our proposed compromise should be all we need at this step of the process.  Would any member of the committee like to volunteer to draft the EC?s proposed response to the appellants?

Thanks,
Robin


> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
> 
> Hello Colleagues,
> 
> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to the appeal made.  I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we resolved it accordingly.  
> 
> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as its resolved, but we need to respond as EC.  I hope all concur with my comment on this.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Poncelet
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160825/fab69e02/attachment.html>


From pileleji  Thu Aug 25 18:48:50 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 15:48:50 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <17BEF5FA-BA82-4F3C-977F-88EE1443DA90@ipjustice.org>
References: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<17BEF5FA-BA82-4F3C-977F-88EE1443DA90@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAEux40srDU5y29X8gOA+rBfDQhQjYM_t-6NPB5hip7+CA0YFmg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Robin,

I just read your very articulated and outlined email in detail, and this
was why I suggested you write on behalf an official communication to the
appellants based on what you just said.  I belief we can all concur on this
soonest, with a short and simple letter then communicate to the
appellants.  So I suggest again please Robin, can you draft the letter to
the appellants, I hope other colleagues agree with me on this.

Kind Regards

Poncelet

On 25 August 2016 at 15:42, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Hello Colleagues,
>
> Yes, under the charter, it is the committee?s job to respond to the
> appeal.  Since the EC did not reverse the decision to continue with the
> ongoing election, and instead decided to propose a compromise solution that
> would allow the election to go forward, but with NOTA counting, we are
> supposed to communicate that decision to the appellants in writing, and ask
> if they will accept our compromise, thus withdrawing their appeal.
> Although I haven?t received confirmation from all 21 appellants yet, I do
> expect this proposed compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the
> appeal to be immediately withdrawn.
>
> The charter specifically requires that we document these appeal
> discussions thoroughly.  ?All formal discussions related to the appeal will
> be done in a transparent manner and be both recorded and have transcripts
> made.  All documentation related to the appeal, including transcript of
> formal discussions, will be collected on a public website associated with
> the NCSG and will be retained for a minimum of 4 years.? (Section 2.4.2.1)
>
> As I do expect the EC?s compromise will be accepted by the appellants and
> the appeal withdrawn, the EC should not have to go into the extended
> negotiations to work out a mutually agreeable solution, followed by the
> membership vote as outlined in the charter.
>
> We should send our official compromise proposal to the appellants as soon
> as possible so the ongoing election is no longer in question of being
> suspended.  Obviously this official committee response to the appellants
> must be text that is approved of by the EC as a whole in advance of of it
> being sent on the EC?s behalf.  I would strongly object to the chair taking
> it upon himself to undertake this committee task without permitting
> oversight by the committee as is required in the charter and has been
> requested by the members.  This critical work is charged to the committee
> as a whole and needs to be done by the entire committee.
>
> So a simple and short communication to the appellants officially
> communicating our proposed compromise should be all we need at this step of
> the process.  Would any member of the committee like to volunteer to draft
> the EC?s proposed response to the appellants?
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
>
> Hello Colleagues,
>
> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I just
> read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to the
> appeal made.  I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we resolved
> it accordingly.
>
> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails etc
> in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this respond
> to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as its
> resolved, but we need to respond as EC.  I hope all concur with my comment
> on this.
>
> Thank you
>
> Poncelet
>
>
>
> --
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
> <http://www.waigf.org/>www,insistglobal.com
> <http://www.itag.gm/>www.npoc.org
> <http://www.npoc.org/>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
>
>


-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160825/24ebd0ab/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Thu Aug 25 18:52:30 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 08:52:30 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <307342428.416.1472126446720.JavaMail.dorothykgordon@Dorothys-Air>
References: <307342428.416.1472126446720.JavaMail.dorothykgordon@Dorothys-Air>
Message-ID: <4B8189D1-A46A-4665-98F6-8E8F0C00C1EF@ipjustice.org>

Hi Dorothy,

Great to hear from you!

I believe you are still an observer on the EC by virtue of the candidate consumer constituency that folks were trying to pull together a few years ago.  

On a related note, part of the task of the EC in the coming months will be to evaluate all the constituencies, including candidate constituencies, to see how progress is coming and if they are still alive and active, etc.  So we will definitely need your help and input in that discussion specifically in the coming months.

Thanks,
Robin


> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:36 AM, Dorothy K. Gordon <director-general at aiti-kace.com.gh> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Poncelet, by the way I am on the EC?
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Poncelet Ileleji" <pileleji at ymca.gm>
> To: "NCSG EC" <ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 11:50:08 AM
> Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Colleagues, 
> 
> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to the appeal made. I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we resolved it accordingly. 
> 
> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as its resolved, but we need to respond as EC. I hope all concur with my comment on this. 
> 
> Thank you 
> 
> Poncelet 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS 
> Coordinator 
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio 
> MDI Road Kanifing South 
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul 
> The Gambia, West Africa 
> Tel: (220) 4370240 
> Fax:(220) 4390793 
> Cell:(220) 9912508 
> Skype: pons_utd 
> www.ymca.gm 
> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ 
> www.waigf.org 
> www,insistglobal.com 
> www.npoc.org 
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 
> www.diplointernetgovernance.org 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
> 




From robin  Thu Aug 25 19:14:26 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 09:14:26 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40srDU5y29X8gOA+rBfDQhQjYM_t-6NPB5hip7+CA0YFmg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<17BEF5FA-BA82-4F3C-977F-88EE1443DA90@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40srDU5y29X8gOA+rBfDQhQjYM_t-6NPB5hip7+CA0YFmg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DD6350FB-495B-4317-940C-B7B93D4E3E3E@ipjustice.org>

Hi Poncelet,

Apologies, I hadn?t understood that you were suggesting I write the letter; but I would be happy to do that today and send it to this list for approval, so we can move quickly on putting this matter behind us.

Thank you,
Robin

> On Aug 25, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
> 
> Hello Robin,
> 
> I just read your very articulated and outlined email in detail, and this was why I suggested you write on behalf an official communication to the appellants based on what you just said.  I belief we can all concur on this soonest, with a short and simple letter then communicate to the appellants.  So I suggest again please Robin, can you draft the letter to the appellants, I hope other colleagues agree with me on this.
> 
> Kind Regards
> 
> Poncelet
> 
> On 25 August 2016 at 15:42, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
> Hello Colleagues,
> 
> Yes, under the charter, it is the committee?s job to respond to the appeal.  Since the EC did not reverse the decision to continue with the ongoing election, and instead decided to propose a compromise solution that would allow the election to go forward, but with NOTA counting, we are supposed to communicate that decision to the appellants in writing, and ask if they will accept our compromise, thus withdrawing their appeal.  Although I haven?t received confirmation from all 21 appellants yet, I do expect this proposed compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the appeal to be immediately withdrawn.
> 
> The charter specifically requires that we document these appeal discussions thoroughly.  ?All formal discussions related to the appeal will be done in a transparent manner and be both recorded and have transcripts made.  All documentation related to the appeal, including transcript of formal discussions, will be collected on a public website associated with the NCSG and will be retained for a minimum of 4 years.? (Section 2.4.2.1)
> 
> As I do expect the EC?s compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the appeal withdrawn, the EC should not have to go into the extended negotiations to work out a mutually agreeable solution, followed by the membership vote as outlined in the charter.
> 
> We should send our official compromise proposal to the appellants as soon as possible so the ongoing election is no longer in question of being suspended.  Obviously this official committee response to the appellants must be text that is approved of by the EC as a whole in advance of of it being sent on the EC?s behalf.  I would strongly object to the chair taking it upon himself to undertake this committee task without permitting oversight by the committee as is required in the charter and has been requested by the members.  This critical work is charged to the committee as a whole and needs to be done by the entire committee.
> 
> So a simple and short communication to the appellants officially communicating our proposed compromise should be all we need at this step of the process.  Would any member of the committee like to volunteer to draft the EC?s proposed response to the appellants?
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello Colleagues,
>> 
>> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to the appeal made.  I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we resolved it accordingly.  
>> 
>> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as its resolved, but we need to respond as EC.  I hope all concur with my comment on this.
>> 
>> Thank you
>> 
>> Poncelet
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>> Coordinator
>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>> The Gambia, West Africa
>> Tel: (220) 4370240 <tel:%28220%29%204370240>
>> Fax:(220) 4390793 <tel:%28220%29%204390793>
>> Cell:(220) 9912508 <tel:%28220%29%209912508>
>> Skype: pons_utd
>> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
>> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
>> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160825/0f0b9d24/attachment.html>


From joankerr  Thu Aug 25 19:19:28 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:19:28 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <DD6350FB-495B-4317-940C-B7B93D4E3E3E@ipjustice.org>
References: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<17BEF5FA-BA82-4F3C-977F-88EE1443DA90@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40srDU5y29X8gOA+rBfDQhQjYM_t-6NPB5hip7+CA0YFmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<DD6350FB-495B-4317-940C-B7B93D4E3E3E@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CADwmshL7f=vKsoMo5OyWoGpVLCaNL6qqAFa2x3Q4oRKAwg4uuw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Robin.

Joan

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Hi Poncelet,
>
> Apologies, I hadn?t understood that you were suggesting I write the
> letter; but I would be happy to do that today and send it to this list for
> approval, so we can move quickly on putting this matter behind us.
>
> Thank you,
> Robin
>
> On Aug 25, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
>
> Hello Robin,
>
> I just read your very articulated and outlined email in detail, and this
> was why I suggested you write on behalf an official communication to the
> appellants based on what you just said.  I belief we can all concur on this
> soonest, with a short and simple letter then communicate to the
> appellants.  So I suggest again please Robin, can you draft the letter to
> the appellants, I hope other colleagues agree with me on this.
>
> Kind Regards
>
> Poncelet
>
> On 25 August 2016 at 15:42, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Hello Colleagues,
>>
>> Yes, under the charter, it is the committee?s job to respond to the
>> appeal.  Since the EC did not reverse the decision to continue with the
>> ongoing election, and instead decided to propose a compromise solution that
>> would allow the election to go forward, but with NOTA counting, we are
>> supposed to communicate that decision to the appellants in writing, and ask
>> if they will accept our compromise, thus withdrawing their appeal.
>> Although I haven?t received confirmation from all 21 appellants yet, I do
>> expect this proposed compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the
>> appeal to be immediately withdrawn.
>>
>> The charter specifically requires that we document these appeal
>> discussions thoroughly.  ?All formal discussions related to the appeal will
>> be done in a transparent manner and be both recorded and have transcripts
>> made.  All documentation related to the appeal, including transcript of
>> formal discussions, will be collected on a public website associated with
>> the NCSG and will be retained for a minimum of 4 years.? (Section 2.4.2.1)
>>
>> As I do expect the EC?s compromise will be accepted by the appellants and
>> the appeal withdrawn, the EC should not have to go into the extended
>> negotiations to work out a mutually agreeable solution, followed by the
>> membership vote as outlined in the charter.
>>
>> We should send our official compromise proposal to the appellants as soon
>> as possible so the ongoing election is no longer in question of being
>> suspended.  Obviously this official committee response to the appellants
>> must be text that is approved of by the EC as a whole in advance of of it
>> being sent on the EC?s behalf.  I would strongly object to the chair taking
>> it upon himself to undertake this committee task without permitting
>> oversight by the committee as is required in the charter and has been
>> requested by the members.  This critical work is charged to the committee
>> as a whole and needs to be done by the entire committee.
>>
>> So a simple and short communication to the appellants officially
>> communicating our proposed compromise should be all we need at this step of
>> the process.  Would any member of the committee like to volunteer to draft
>> the EC?s proposed response to the appellants?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Colleagues,
>>
>> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I
>> just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to
>> the appeal made.  I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we
>> resolved it accordingly.
>>
>> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails etc
>> in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this respond
>> to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as its
>> resolved, but we need to respond as EC.  I hope all concur with my comment
>> on this.
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> Poncelet
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>> Coordinator
>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>> The Gambia, West Africa
>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>> Skype: pons_utd
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
>> <http://www.waigf.org/>www,insistglobal.com
>> <http://www.itag.gm/>www.npoc.org
>> <http://www.npoc.org/>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
> <http://www.waigf.org/>www,insistglobal.com
> <http://www.itag.gm/>www.npoc.org
> <http://www.npoc.org/>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160825/aadcbed4/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Fri Aug 26 00:00:50 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:00:50 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <CADwmshL7f=vKsoMo5OyWoGpVLCaNL6qqAFa2x3Q4oRKAwg4uuw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<17BEF5FA-BA82-4F3C-977F-88EE1443DA90@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40srDU5y29X8gOA+rBfDQhQjYM_t-6NPB5hip7+CA0YFmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<DD6350FB-495B-4317-940C-B7B93D4E3E3E@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshL7f=vKsoMo5OyWoGpVLCaNL6qqAFa2x3Q4oRKAwg4uuw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0B3E28AE-7A97-4149-93D7-4758AB8E252F@ipjustice.org>

Colleagues,

As requested, I?ve drafted a proposed response from the EC to the appellants regarding their appeal and our compromise proposal for this year.  Please have a look below and feel free to suggest changes to the response.

Thanks,
Robin

_________________

This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.

The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.

Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.

We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  

The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  

We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.

Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly withdrawn.  Thank you.

Signed,
Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group

_________________


> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Robin.
> 
> Joan
> 
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
> Hi Poncelet,
> 
> Apologies, I hadn?t understood that you were suggesting I write the letter; but I would be happy to do that today and send it to this list for approval, so we can move quickly on putting this matter behind us.
> 
> Thank you,
> Robin
> 
>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello Robin,
>> 
>> I just read your very articulated and outlined email in detail, and this was why I suggested you write on behalf an official communication to the appellants based on what you just said.  I belief we can all concur on this soonest, with a short and simple letter then communicate to the appellants.  So I suggest again please Robin, can you draft the letter to the appellants, I hope other colleagues agree with me on this.
>> 
>> Kind Regards
>> 
>> Poncelet
>> 
>> On 25 August 2016 at 15:42, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>> Hello Colleagues,
>> 
>> Yes, under the charter, it is the committee?s job to respond to the appeal.  Since the EC did not reverse the decision to continue with the ongoing election, and instead decided to propose a compromise solution that would allow the election to go forward, but with NOTA counting, we are supposed to communicate that decision to the appellants in writing, and ask if they will accept our compromise, thus withdrawing their appeal.  Although I haven?t received confirmation from all 21 appellants yet, I do expect this proposed compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the appeal to be immediately withdrawn.
>> 
>> The charter specifically requires that we document these appeal discussions thoroughly.  ?All formal discussions related to the appeal will be done in a transparent manner and be both recorded and have transcripts made.  All documentation related to the appeal, including transcript of formal discussions, will be collected on a public website associated with the NCSG and will be retained for a minimum of 4 years.? (Section 2.4.2.1)
>> 
>> As I do expect the EC?s compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the appeal withdrawn, the EC should not have to go into the extended negotiations to work out a mutually agreeable solution, followed by the membership vote as outlined in the charter.
>> 
>> We should send our official compromise proposal to the appellants as soon as possible so the ongoing election is no longer in question of being suspended.  Obviously this official committee response to the appellants must be text that is approved of by the EC as a whole in advance of of it being sent on the EC?s behalf.  I would strongly object to the chair taking it upon himself to undertake this committee task without permitting oversight by the committee as is required in the charter and has been requested by the members.  This critical work is charged to the committee as a whole and needs to be done by the entire committee.
>> 
>> So a simple and short communication to the appellants officially communicating our proposed compromise should be all we need at this step of the process.  Would any member of the committee like to volunteer to draft the EC?s proposed response to the appellants?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>> 
>>> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to the appeal made.  I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we resolved it accordingly.  
>>> 
>>> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as its resolved, but we need to respond as EC.  I hope all concur with my comment on this.
>>> 
>>> Thank you
>>> 
>>> Poncelet
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>> Coordinator
>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>> Tel: (220) 4370240 <tel:%28220%29%204370240>
>>> Fax:(220) 4390793 <tel:%28220%29%204390793>
>>> Cell:(220) 9912508 <tel:%28220%29%209912508>
>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
>>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
>>> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
>>> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
>>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>> Coordinator
>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>> The Gambia, West Africa
>> Tel: (220) 4370240 <tel:%28220%29%204370240>
>> Fax:(220) 4390793 <tel:%28220%29%204390793>
>> Cell:(220) 9912508 <tel:%28220%29%209912508>
>> Skype: pons_utd
>> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
>> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
>> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160825/d6602ded/attachment.html>


From Monika.Zalnieriute  Fri Aug 26 01:29:20 2016
From: Monika.Zalnieriute (Zalnieriute, Monika)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 22:29:20 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <0B3E28AE-7A97-4149-93D7-4758AB8E252F@ipjustice.org>
References: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<17BEF5FA-BA82-4F3C-977F-88EE1443DA90@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40srDU5y29X8gOA+rBfDQhQjYM_t-6NPB5hip7+CA0YFmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<DD6350FB-495B-4317-940C-B7B93D4E3E3E@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshL7f=vKsoMo5OyWoGpVLCaNL6qqAFa2x3Q4oRKAwg4uuw@mail.gmail.com>,
	<0B3E28AE-7A97-4149-93D7-4758AB8E252F@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB556CB88AB324985E4743AD7F6ED0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Looks good to me:) Thank You, Robin!


----

Dr. Monika Zalnieriute



Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I

Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu I
Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org I
Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I zephiroplatform.org I
Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I cihr.eu I









________________________________
From: EC-NCSG <ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> on behalf of Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 9:00 PM
To: NCSG EC
Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance

Colleagues,

As requested, I?ve drafted a proposed response from the EC to the appellants regarding their appeal and our compromise proposal for this year.  Please have a look below and feel free to suggest changes to the response.

Thanks,
Robin

_________________

This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.

The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.

Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.

We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.

The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.

We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.

Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly withdrawn.  Thank you.

Signed,
Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group

_________________


On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org<mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:

Thanks Robin.

Joan

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
Hi Poncelet,

Apologies, I hadn?t understood that you were suggesting I write the letter; but I would be happy to do that today and send it to this list for approval, so we can move quickly on putting this matter behind us.

Thank you,
Robin

On Aug 25, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm<mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:

Hello Robin,

I just read your very articulated and outlined email in detail, and this was why I suggested you write on behalf an official communication to the appellants based on what you just said.  I belief we can all concur on this soonest, with a short and simple letter then communicate to the appellants.  So I suggest again please Robin, can you draft the letter to the appellants, I hope other colleagues agree with me on this.

Kind Regards

Poncelet

On 25 August 2016 at 15:42, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
Hello Colleagues,

Yes, under the charter, it is the committee?s job to respond to the appeal.  Since the EC did not reverse the decision to continue with the ongoing election, and instead decided to propose a compromise solution that would allow the election to go forward, but with NOTA counting, we are supposed to communicate that decision to the appellants in writing, and ask if they will accept our compromise, thus withdrawing their appeal.  Although I haven?t received confirmation from all 21 appellants yet, I do expect this proposed compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the appeal to be immediately withdrawn.

The charter specifically requires that we document these appeal discussions thoroughly.  ?All formal discussions related to the appeal will be done in a transparent manner and be both recorded and have transcripts made.  All documentation related to the appeal, including transcript of formal discussions, will be collected on a public website associated with the NCSG and will be retained for a minimum of 4 years.? (Section 2.4.2.1)

As I do expect the EC?s compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the appeal withdrawn, the EC should not have to go into the extended negotiations to work out a mutually agreeable solution, followed by the membership vote as outlined in the charter.

We should send our official compromise proposal to the appellants as soon as possible so the ongoing election is no longer in question of being suspended.  Obviously this official committee response to the appellants must be text that is approved of by the EC as a whole in advance of of it being sent on the EC?s behalf.  I would strongly object to the chair taking it upon himself to undertake this committee task without permitting oversight by the committee as is required in the charter and has been requested by the members.  This critical work is charged to the committee as a whole and needs to be done by the entire committee.

So a simple and short communication to the appellants officially communicating our proposed compromise should be all we need at this step of the process.  Would any member of the committee like to volunteer to draft the EC?s proposed response to the appellants?

Thanks,
Robin


On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm<mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:

Hello Colleagues,

Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to the appeal made.  I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we resolved it accordingly.

So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as its resolved, but we need to respond as EC.  I hope all concur with my comment on this.

Thank you

Poncelet



--
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240<tel:%28220%29%204370240>
Fax:(220) 4390793<tel:%28220%29%204390793>
Cell:(220) 9912508<tel:%28220%29%209912508>
Skype: pons_utd
www.ymca.gm<http://www.ymca.gm/>
http://jokkolabs.net/en/
www.waigf.org<http://www.waigf.org/>
www,insistglobal.com<http://www.itag.gm/>
www.npoc.org<http://www.npoc.org/>
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
www.diplointernetgovernance.org<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>




_______________________________________________
EC-NCSG mailing list
EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg




--
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240<tel:%28220%29%204370240>
Fax:(220) 4390793<tel:%28220%29%204390793>
Cell:(220) 9912508<tel:%28220%29%209912508>
Skype: pons_utd
www.ymca.gm<http://www.ymca.gm/>
http://jokkolabs.net/en/
www.waigf.org<http://www.waigf.org/>
www,insistglobal.com<http://www.itag.gm/>
www.npoc.org<http://www.npoc.org/>
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
www.diplointernetgovernance.org<http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>






_______________________________________________
EC-NCSG mailing list
EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg




The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160825/a6c675cc/attachment-0001.html>


From pileleji  Fri Aug 26 04:35:59 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 01:35:59 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB556CB88AB324985E4743AD7F6ED0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<17BEF5FA-BA82-4F3C-977F-88EE1443DA90@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40srDU5y29X8gOA+rBfDQhQjYM_t-6NPB5hip7+CA0YFmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<DD6350FB-495B-4317-940C-B7B93D4E3E3E@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshL7f=vKsoMo5OyWoGpVLCaNL6qqAFa2x3Q4oRKAwg4uuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<0B3E28AE-7A97-4149-93D7-4758AB8E252F@ipjustice.org>
	<DB3PR05MB556CB88AB324985E4743AD7F6ED0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAEux40uJ-JbV8=MtnYBg-=9xzTXW-J70x9MFXwFLDN8bwa+=yw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Robin,

Highly appreciated and very good indeed, i support the statement
accordingly.

Thanks Again

Poncelet

On 25 August 2016 at 22:29, Zalnieriute, Monika <Monika.Zalnieriute at eui.eu>
wrote:

> Looks good to me:) Thank You, Robin!
>
>
> ----
>
> Dr. Monika Zalnieriute
>
>
> Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I
>
> Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I
> cmds.ceu.edu I
>
> Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org
> I
>
> Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I
> zephiroplatform.org I
>
> Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I
> cihr.eu I
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* EC-NCSG <ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> on behalf of Robin Gross <
> robin at ipjustice.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 25, 2016 9:00 PM
> *To:* NCSG EC
> *Subject:* Re: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
>
> Colleagues,
>
> As requested, I?ve drafted a proposed response from the EC to the
> appellants regarding their appeal and our compromise proposal for this
> year.  Please have a look below and feel free to suggest changes to the
> response.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> _________________
>
> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>
> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that
> meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in
> lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>
> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
> GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of
> the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council
> in this year?s election.
>
> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it
> is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election
> as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on
> the ballot.
>
> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>
> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>
> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal
> is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly withdrawn.  Thank
> you.
>
> Signed,
> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>
> _________________
>
>
> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks Robin.
>
> Joan
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Poncelet,
>>
>> Apologies, I hadn?t understood that you were suggesting I write the
>> letter; but I would be happy to do that today and send it to this list for
>> approval, so we can move quickly on putting this matter behind us.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Robin
>>
>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Robin,
>>
>> I just read your very articulated and outlined email in detail, and this
>> was why I suggested you write on behalf an official communication to the
>> appellants based on what you just said.  I belief we can all concur on this
>> soonest, with a short and simple letter then communicate to the
>> appellants.  So I suggest again please Robin, can you draft the letter to
>> the appellants, I hope other colleagues agree with me on this.
>>
>> Kind Regards
>>
>> Poncelet
>>
>> On 25 August 2016 at 15:42, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>
>>> Yes, under the charter, it is the committee?s job to respond to the
>>> appeal.  Since the EC did not reverse the decision to continue with the
>>> ongoing election, and instead decided to propose a compromise solution that
>>> would allow the election to go forward, but with NOTA counting, we are
>>> supposed to communicate that decision to the appellants in writing, and ask
>>> if they will accept our compromise, thus withdrawing their appeal.
>>> Although I haven?t received confirmation from all 21 appellants yet, I do
>>> expect this proposed compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the
>>> appeal to be immediately withdrawn.
>>>
>>> The charter specifically requires that we document these appeal
>>> discussions thoroughly.  ?All formal discussions related to the appeal will
>>> be done in a transparent manner and be both recorded and have transcripts
>>> made.  All documentation related to the appeal, including transcript of
>>> formal discussions, will be collected on a public website associated with
>>> the NCSG and will be retained for a minimum of 4 years.? (Section 2.4.2.1)
>>>
>>> As I do expect the EC?s compromise will be accepted by the appellants
>>> and the appeal withdrawn, the EC should not have to go into the extended
>>> negotiations to work out a mutually agreeable solution, followed by the
>>> membership vote as outlined in the charter.
>>>
>>> We should send our official compromise proposal to the appellants as
>>> soon as possible so the ongoing election is no longer in question of being
>>> suspended.  Obviously this official committee response to the appellants
>>> must be text that is approved of by the EC as a whole in advance of of it
>>> being sent on the EC?s behalf.  I would strongly object to the chair taking
>>> it upon himself to undertake this committee task without permitting
>>> oversight by the committee as is required in the charter and has been
>>> requested by the members.  This critical work is charged to the committee
>>> as a whole and needs to be done by the entire committee.
>>>
>>> So a simple and short communication to the appellants officially
>>> communicating our proposed compromise should be all we need at this step of
>>> the process.  Would any member of the committee like to volunteer to draft
>>> the EC?s proposed response to the appellants?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>
>>> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I
>>> just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to
>>> the appeal made.  I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we
>>> resolved it accordingly.
>>>
>>> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails etc
>>> in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this respond
>>> to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as its
>>> resolved, but we need to respond as EC.  I hope all concur with my comment
>>> on this.
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>>
>>> Poncelet
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>> Coordinator
>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/> http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>>> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
>>> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/> www.npoc.org
>>> <http://www.npoc.org/> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753> *www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>> Coordinator
>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>> The Gambia, West Africa
>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>> Skype: pons_utd
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/> http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
>> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/> www.npoc.org
>> <http://www.npoc.org/> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753> *www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>
>>
>
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
> forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
> this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
>


-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160826/95d0523f/attachment-0001.html>


From director-general  Fri Aug 26 05:42:52 2016
From: director-general (Dorothy K. Gordon)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 02:42:52 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <4B8189D1-A46A-4665-98F6-8E8F0C00C1EF@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <1777081491.599.1472180814015.JavaMail.dorothykgordon@Dorothys-Air>

Well noted. However do note that I had asked Maryam to change my address to my dgdorothydg at gmail.com address as I should be leaving aiti-kace soon and this email will be discontinued. Who do I contact so this one is moved to the new address?
best
D

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org>
To: "Dorothy K. Gordon" <director-general at aiti-kace.com.gh>
Cc: "Poncelet Ileleji" <pileleji at ymca.gm>, "NCSG EC" <ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 3:52:30 PM
Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance

Hi Dorothy,

Great to hear from you!

I believe you are still an observer on the EC by virtue of the candidate consumer constituency that folks were trying to pull together a few years ago.  

On a related note, part of the task of the EC in the coming months will be to evaluate all the constituencies, including candidate constituencies, to see how progress is coming and if they are still alive and active, etc.  So we will definitely need your help and input in that discussion specifically in the coming months.

Thanks,
Robin


> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:36 AM, Dorothy K. Gordon <director-general at aiti-kace.com.gh> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Poncelet, by the way I am on the EC?
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Poncelet Ileleji" <pileleji at ymca.gm>
> To: "NCSG EC" <ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 11:50:08 AM
> Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Colleagues, 
> 
> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to the appeal made. I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we resolved it accordingly. 
> 
> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as its resolved, but we need to respond as EC. I hope all concur with my comment on this. 
> 
> Thank you 
> 
> Poncelet 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS 
> Coordinator 
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio 
> MDI Road Kanifing South 
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul 
> The Gambia, West Africa 
> Tel: (220) 4370240 
> Fax:(220) 4390793 
> Cell:(220) 9912508 
> Skype: pons_utd 
> www.ymca.gm 
> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ 
> www.waigf.org 
> www,insistglobal.com 
> www.npoc.org 
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 
> www.diplointernetgovernance.org 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
> 




From maryam.bakoshi  Fri Aug 26 10:44:47 2016
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 07:44:47 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <1777081491.599.1472180814015.JavaMail.dorothykgordon@Dorothys-Air>
References: <4B8189D1-A46A-4665-98F6-8E8F0C00C1EF@ipjustice.org>,
	<1777081491.599.1472180814015.JavaMail.dorothykgordon@Dorothys-Air>
Message-ID: <83925ADC-4CEA-4165-9446-1A39410CA091@icann.org>

Dear Dorothy,

Thank you for your email. 

Your email address was changed on all mailing lists I have access to. 

However, Robin, might be able to change the email address for the ExCom mailing list. 


Many thanks,

Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC & NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

E: Maryam.bakoshi at icann.org
S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann
T: +44 7737698036


> On 26 Aug 2016, at 04:08, Dorothy K. Gordon <director-general at aiti-kace.com.gh> wrote:
> 
> Well noted. However do note that I had asked Maryam to change my address to my dgdorothydg at gmail.com address as I should be leaving aiti-kace soon and this email will be discontinued. Who do I contact so this one is moved to the new address?
> best
> D
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org>
> To: "Dorothy K. Gordon" <director-general at aiti-kace.com.gh>
> Cc: "Poncelet Ileleji" <pileleji at ymca.gm>, "NCSG EC" <ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 3:52:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
> 
> Hi Dorothy,
> 
> Great to hear from you!
> 
> I believe you are still an observer on the EC by virtue of the candidate consumer constituency that folks were trying to pull together a few years ago.  
> 
> On a related note, part of the task of the EC in the coming months will be to evaluate all the constituencies, including candidate constituencies, to see how progress is coming and if they are still alive and active, etc.  So we will definitely need your help and input in that discussion specifically in the coming months.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:36 AM, Dorothy K. Gordon <director-general at aiti-kace.com.gh> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Poncelet, by the way I am on the EC?
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Poncelet Ileleji" <pileleji at ymca.gm>
>> To: "NCSG EC" <ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 11:50:08 AM
>> Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hello Colleagues, 
>> 
>> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to the appeal made. I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we resolved it accordingly. 
>> 
>> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as its resolved, but we need to respond as EC. I hope all concur with my comment on this. 
>> 
>> Thank you 
>> 
>> Poncelet 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS 
>> Coordinator 
>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio 
>> MDI Road Kanifing South 
>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul 
>> The Gambia, West Africa 
>> Tel: (220) 4370240 
>> Fax:(220) 4390793 
>> Cell:(220) 9912508 
>> Skype: pons_utd 
>> www.ymca.gm 
>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ 
>> www.waigf.org 
>> www,insistglobal.com 
>> www.npoc.org 
>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 
>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg



From director-general  Fri Aug 26 12:14:38 2016
From: director-general (Dorothy K. Gordon)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 09:14:38 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <83925ADC-4CEA-4165-9446-1A39410CA091@icann.org>
Message-ID: <1615539026.668.1472204286720.JavaMail.dorothykgordon@Dorothys-Air>

Thanks Maryam, I did not realise I needed to give her the information but now she has it I am sure I will be moved!

best

----- Original Message -----
From: "Maryam Bakoshi" <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>
To: "Dorothy K. Gordon" <director-general at aiti-kace.com.gh>
Cc: "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org>, "NCSG EC" <ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 7:44:47 AM
Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance

Dear Dorothy,

Thank you for your email. 

Your email address was changed on all mailing lists I have access to. 

However, Robin, might be able to change the email address for the ExCom mailing list. 


Many thanks,

Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat Support - NCSG, NCUC & NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

E: Maryam.bakoshi at icann.org
S: Maryam.bakoshi.icann
T: +44 7737698036


> On 26 Aug 2016, at 04:08, Dorothy K. Gordon <director-general at aiti-kace.com.gh> wrote:
> 
> Well noted. However do note that I had asked Maryam to change my address to my dgdorothydg at gmail.com address as I should be leaving aiti-kace soon and this email will be discontinued. Who do I contact so this one is moved to the new address?
> best
> D
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org>
> To: "Dorothy K. Gordon" <director-general at aiti-kace.com.gh>
> Cc: "Poncelet Ileleji" <pileleji at ymca.gm>, "NCSG EC" <ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 3:52:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
> 
> Hi Dorothy,
> 
> Great to hear from you!
> 
> I believe you are still an observer on the EC by virtue of the candidate consumer constituency that folks were trying to pull together a few years ago.  
> 
> On a related note, part of the task of the EC in the coming months will be to evaluate all the constituencies, including candidate constituencies, to see how progress is coming and if they are still alive and active, etc.  So we will definitely need your help and input in that discussion specifically in the coming months.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:36 AM, Dorothy K. Gordon <director-general at aiti-kace.com.gh> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Poncelet, by the way I am on the EC?
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Poncelet Ileleji" <pileleji at ymca.gm>
>> To: "NCSG EC" <ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 11:50:08 AM
>> Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hello Colleagues, 
>> 
>> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to the appeal made. I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we resolved it accordingly. 
>> 
>> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as its resolved, but we need to respond as EC. I hope all concur with my comment on this. 
>> 
>> Thank you 
>> 
>> Poncelet 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS 
>> Coordinator 
>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio 
>> MDI Road Kanifing South 
>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul 
>> The Gambia, West Africa 
>> Tel: (220) 4370240 
>> Fax:(220) 4390793 
>> Cell:(220) 9912508 
>> Skype: pons_utd 
>> www.ymca.gm 
>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ 
>> www.waigf.org 
>> www,insistglobal.com 
>> www.npoc.org 
>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 
>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg



From robin  Fri Aug 26 18:56:12 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:56:12 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <CADwmsh+410gPWKnuaS_cJj2f-jtv_-zuURm9OP384rkkTk5uxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<17BEF5FA-BA82-4F3C-977F-88EE1443DA90@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40srDU5y29X8gOA+rBfDQhQjYM_t-6NPB5hip7+CA0YFmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<DD6350FB-495B-4317-940C-B7B93D4E3E3E@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshL7f=vKsoMo5OyWoGpVLCaNL6qqAFa2x3Q4oRKAwg4uuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<0B3E28AE-7A97-4149-93D7-4758AB8E252F@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+410gPWKnuaS_cJj2f-jtv_-zuURm9OP384rkkTk5uxg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8CC90A3D-7F15-4839-9FC3-D218BE17730C@ipjustice.org>

Great, folks.  I?d suggest that Joan send the letter on behalf of the Committee since she chaired the discussion on the appeal and Tapani is unavailable.

In addition to sending the response to the appellants, we should subsequently send a clarifying email to the members from the EC as well, so that there is no further confusion as to what the votes mean.  

It is important that we have the ballots agreed on before they are sent next year so as to prevent such confusion and misunderstandings.  Regardless of whether that was done in the past, our members have asked for oversight of the election process and our charter requires it of us.  We are trying to improve after all.  :-)

I made one small (purple) edit to the response below to clarify that the appeal has been satisfactorily resolved.

Thanks,
Robin

_________________

Dear Appellants,

This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.

The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.

Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.

We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  

The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  

We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.

Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.

Signed,
Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group

_________________


> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG> wrote:
> 
> Hi Robin,
> 
> It looks good to me.  Once the content is agreed on, who actually sends the letter on behalf of the EC.
> 
> Thank you for writing this.
> 
> Joan
> 
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
> Colleagues,
> 
> As requested, I?ve drafted a proposed response from the EC to the appellants regarding their appeal and our compromise proposal for this year.  Please have a look below and feel free to suggest changes to the response.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> _________________
> 
> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
> 
> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
> 
> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
> 
> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  
> 
> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
> 
> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
> 
> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly withdrawn.  Thank you.
> 
> Signed,
> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
> 
> _________________
> 
> 
>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks Robin.
>> 
>> Joan
>> 
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>> Hi Poncelet,
>> 
>> Apologies, I hadn?t understood that you were suggesting I write the letter; but I would be happy to do that today and send it to this list for approval, so we can move quickly on putting this matter behind us.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Robin
>> 
>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello Robin,
>>> 
>>> I just read your very articulated and outlined email in detail, and this was why I suggested you write on behalf an official communication to the appellants based on what you just said.  I belief we can all concur on this soonest, with a short and simple letter then communicate to the appellants.  So I suggest again please Robin, can you draft the letter to the appellants, I hope other colleagues agree with me on this.
>>> 
>>> Kind Regards
>>> 
>>> Poncelet
>>> 
>>> On 25 August 2016 at 15:42, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>> 
>>> Yes, under the charter, it is the committee?s job to respond to the appeal.  Since the EC did not reverse the decision to continue with the ongoing election, and instead decided to propose a compromise solution that would allow the election to go forward, but with NOTA counting, we are supposed to communicate that decision to the appellants in writing, and ask if they will accept our compromise, thus withdrawing their appeal.  Although I haven?t received confirmation from all 21 appellants yet, I do expect this proposed compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the appeal to be immediately withdrawn.
>>> 
>>> The charter specifically requires that we document these appeal discussions thoroughly.  ?All formal discussions related to the appeal will be done in a transparent manner and be both recorded and have transcripts made.  All documentation related to the appeal, including transcript of formal discussions, will be collected on a public website associated with the NCSG and will be retained for a minimum of 4 years.? (Section 2.4.2.1)
>>> 
>>> As I do expect the EC?s compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the appeal withdrawn, the EC should not have to go into the extended negotiations to work out a mutually agreeable solution, followed by the membership vote as outlined in the charter.
>>> 
>>> We should send our official compromise proposal to the appellants as soon as possible so the ongoing election is no longer in question of being suspended.  Obviously this official committee response to the appellants must be text that is approved of by the EC as a whole in advance of of it being sent on the EC?s behalf.  I would strongly object to the chair taking it upon himself to undertake this committee task without permitting oversight by the committee as is required in the charter and has been requested by the members.  This critical work is charged to the committee as a whole and needs to be done by the entire committee.
>>> 
>>> So a simple and short communication to the appellants officially communicating our proposed compromise should be all we need at this step of the process.  Would any member of the committee like to volunteer to draft the EC?s proposed response to the appellants?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>> 
>>>> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to the appeal made.  I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we resolved it accordingly.  
>>>> 
>>>> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as its resolved, but we need to respond as EC.  I hope all concur with my comment on this.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you
>>>> 
>>>> Poncelet
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>> Coordinator
>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240 <tel:%28220%29%204370240>
>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793 <tel:%28220%29%204390793>
>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508 <tel:%28220%29%209912508>
>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
>>>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
>>>> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
>>>> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
>>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
>>>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>> Coordinator
>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>> Tel: (220) 4370240 <tel:%28220%29%204370240>
>>> Fax:(220) 4390793 <tel:%28220%29%204390793>
>>> Cell:(220) 9912508 <tel:%28220%29%209912508>
>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
>>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
>>> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
>>> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
>>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160826/aa318384/attachment-0001.html>


From joankerr  Fri Aug 26 19:56:38 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 12:56:38 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <8CC90A3D-7F15-4839-9FC3-D218BE17730C@ipjustice.org>
References: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<17BEF5FA-BA82-4F3C-977F-88EE1443DA90@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40srDU5y29X8gOA+rBfDQhQjYM_t-6NPB5hip7+CA0YFmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<DD6350FB-495B-4317-940C-B7B93D4E3E3E@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshL7f=vKsoMo5OyWoGpVLCaNL6qqAFa2x3Q4oRKAwg4uuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<0B3E28AE-7A97-4149-93D7-4758AB8E252F@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+410gPWKnuaS_cJj2f-jtv_-zuURm9OP384rkkTk5uxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8CC90A3D-7F15-4839-9FC3-D218BE17730C@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CADwmshKrjm_gfdrp1vs2Lta0UJ-eaJy4RmHzKLmNnLjW-G6YGg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robin, All

Thank you for writing the response.  Well done.  I agree that I will send
the letter on behalf of the committee.  I wanted to add the actual sentence
we agreed to in the call highlighted in green.  It doesn't change the
context or tone, however it was what we agreed to do.

Thanks again
Joan

Dear Appellants,


This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of
the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.


The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to
discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that
meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in
lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.


Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
members, but with the understanding that every candidate *with less votes
than nota lose, **and the* *s**ame number as nota is enough to get in* on
the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the
election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes
than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to
the GNSO Council in this year?s election.


We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is
a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as
planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on
the ballot.


The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed
by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left
unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.


We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.


Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is
acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.


On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Great, folks.  I?d suggest that Joan send the letter on behalf of the
> Committee since she chaired the discussion on the appeal and Tapani is
> unavailable.
>
> In addition to sending the response to the appellants, we should
> subsequently send a clarifying email to the members from the EC as well, so
> that there is no further confusion as to what the votes mean.
>
> It is important that we have the ballots agreed on before they are sent
> next year so as to prevent such confusion and misunderstandings.
> Regardless of whether that was done in the past, our members have asked for
> oversight of the election process and our charter requires it of us.  We
> are trying to improve after all.  :-)
>
> I made one small (purple) edit to the response below to clarify that the
> appeal has been satisfactorily resolved.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> _________________
>
> Dear Appellants,
>
> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>
> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that
> meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in
> lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>
> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
> GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of
> the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council
> in this year?s election.
>
> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it
> is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election
> as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on
> the ballot.
>
> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>
> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>
> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal
> is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>
> Signed,
> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>
> _________________
>
>
> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG
> <joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Robin,
>
> It looks good to me.  Once the content is agreed on, who actually sends
> the letter on behalf of the EC.
>
> Thank you for writing this.
>
> Joan
>
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Colleagues,
>>
>> As requested, I?ve drafted a proposed response from the EC to the
>> appellants regarding their appeal and our compromise proposal for this
>> year.  Please have a look below and feel free to suggest changes to the
>> response.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>> _________________
>>
>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
>> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
>> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
>> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>
>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
>> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that
>> meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in
>> lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>
>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
>> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
>> GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of
>> the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council
>> in this year?s election.
>>
>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it
>> is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election
>> as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on
>> the ballot.
>>
>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>
>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>
>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal
>> is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly withdrawn.  Thank
>> you.
>>
>> Signed,
>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>
>> _________________
>>
>>
>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Robin.
>>
>> Joan
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Poncelet,
>>>
>>> Apologies, I hadn?t understood that you were suggesting I write the
>>> letter; but I would be happy to do that today and send it to this list for
>>> approval, so we can move quickly on putting this matter behind us.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Robin,
>>>
>>> I just read your very articulated and outlined email in detail, and this
>>> was why I suggested you write on behalf an official communication to the
>>> appellants based on what you just said.  I belief we can all concur on this
>>> soonest, with a short and simple letter then communicate to the
>>> appellants.  So I suggest again please Robin, can you draft the letter to
>>> the appellants, I hope other colleagues agree with me on this.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards
>>>
>>> Poncelet
>>>
>>> On 25 August 2016 at 15:42, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> Yes, under the charter, it is the committee?s job to respond to the
>>>> appeal.  Since the EC did not reverse the decision to continue with the
>>>> ongoing election, and instead decided to propose a compromise solution that
>>>> would allow the election to go forward, but with NOTA counting, we are
>>>> supposed to communicate that decision to the appellants in writing, and ask
>>>> if they will accept our compromise, thus withdrawing their appeal.
>>>> Although I haven?t received confirmation from all 21 appellants yet, I do
>>>> expect this proposed compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the
>>>> appeal to be immediately withdrawn.
>>>>
>>>> The charter specifically requires that we document these appeal
>>>> discussions thoroughly.  ?All formal discussions related to the appeal will
>>>> be done in a transparent manner and be both recorded and have transcripts
>>>> made.  All documentation related to the appeal, including transcript of
>>>> formal discussions, will be collected on a public website associated with
>>>> the NCSG and will be retained for a minimum of 4 years.? (Section 2.4.2.1)
>>>>
>>>> As I do expect the EC?s compromise will be accepted by the appellants
>>>> and the appeal withdrawn, the EC should not have to go into the extended
>>>> negotiations to work out a mutually agreeable solution, followed by the
>>>> membership vote as outlined in the charter.
>>>>
>>>> We should send our official compromise proposal to the appellants as
>>>> soon as possible so the ongoing election is no longer in question of being
>>>> suspended.  Obviously this official committee response to the appellants
>>>> must be text that is approved of by the EC as a whole in advance of of it
>>>> being sent on the EC?s behalf.  I would strongly object to the chair taking
>>>> it upon himself to undertake this committee task without permitting
>>>> oversight by the committee as is required in the charter and has been
>>>> requested by the members.  This critical work is charged to the committee
>>>> as a whole and needs to be done by the entire committee.
>>>>
>>>> So a simple and short communication to the appellants officially
>>>> communicating our proposed compromise should be all we need at this step of
>>>> the process.  Would any member of the committee like to volunteer to draft
>>>> the EC?s proposed response to the appellants?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I
>>>> just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to
>>>> the appeal made.  I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we
>>>> resolved it accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails
>>>> etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this
>>>> respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as
>>>> its resolved, but we need to respond as EC.  I hope all concur with my
>>>> comment on this.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you
>>>>
>>>> Poncelet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>> Coordinator
>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>>>> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
>>>> <http://www.waigf.org/>www,insistglobal.com
>>>> <http://www.itag.gm/>www.npoc.org
>>>> <http://www.npoc.org/>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>>> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>> Coordinator
>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>>> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
>>> <http://www.waigf.org/>www,insistglobal.com
>>> <http://www.itag.gm/>www.npoc.org
>>> <http://www.npoc.org/>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160826/10bb1c99/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Fri Aug 26 20:12:43 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 10:12:43 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <CADwmshKrjm_gfdrp1vs2Lta0UJ-eaJy4RmHzKLmNnLjW-G6YGg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<17BEF5FA-BA82-4F3C-977F-88EE1443DA90@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40srDU5y29X8gOA+rBfDQhQjYM_t-6NPB5hip7+CA0YFmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<DD6350FB-495B-4317-940C-B7B93D4E3E3E@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshL7f=vKsoMo5OyWoGpVLCaNL6qqAFa2x3Q4oRKAwg4uuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<0B3E28AE-7A97-4149-93D7-4758AB8E252F@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+410gPWKnuaS_cJj2f-jtv_-zuURm9OP384rkkTk5uxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8CC90A3D-7F15-4839-9FC3-D218BE17730C@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshKrjm_gfdrp1vs2Lta0UJ-eaJy4RmHzKLmNnLjW-G6YGg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8347C8F1-081D-43FD-9DC7-45887FB2AD98@ipjustice.org>

Thanks, Joan.  I agree with the point you make and that we should clarify it below.  But how is this (in purple) below for simpler language in doing so?

Thanks,
Robin

__________________

Dear Appellants,

This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.

The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.

Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.

We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  

The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  

We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.

Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.

Signed,
Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group

_________________

> On Aug 26, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Robin, All
> 
> Thank you for writing the response.  Well done.  I agree that I will send the letter on behalf of the committee.  I wanted to add the actual sentence we agreed to in the call highlighted in green.  It doesn't change the context or tone, however it was what we agreed to do.
> 
> Thanks again
> Joan
> 
> Dear Appellants,
> 
> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
> 
> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
> 
> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate with less votes than nota lose, and the same number as nota is enough to get in on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
> 
> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  
> 
> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
> 
> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
> 
> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>   
> 
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
> Great, folks.  I?d suggest that Joan send the letter on behalf of the Committee since she chaired the discussion on the appeal and Tapani is unavailable.
> 
> In addition to sending the response to the appellants, we should subsequently send a clarifying email to the members from the EC as well, so that there is no further confusion as to what the votes mean.  
> 
> It is important that we have the ballots agreed on before they are sent next year so as to prevent such confusion and misunderstandings.  Regardless of whether that was done in the past, our members have asked for oversight of the election process and our charter requires it of us.  We are trying to improve after all.  :-)
> 
> I made one small (purple) edit to the response below to clarify that the appeal has been satisfactorily resolved.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> _________________
> 
> Dear Appellants,
> 
> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
> 
> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
> 
> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
> 
> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  
> 
> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
> 
> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
> 
> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
> 
> Signed,
> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
> 
> _________________
> 
> 
>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Robin,
>> 
>> It looks good to me.  Once the content is agreed on, who actually sends the letter on behalf of the EC.
>> 
>> Thank you for writing this.
>> 
>> Joan
>> 
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>> Colleagues,
>> 
>> As requested, I?ve drafted a proposed response from the EC to the appellants regarding their appeal and our compromise proposal for this year.  Please have a look below and feel free to suggest changes to the response.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> _________________
>> 
>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>> 
>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>> 
>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>> 
>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  
>> 
>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
>> 
>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>> 
>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly withdrawn.  Thank you.
>> 
>> Signed,
>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>> 
>> _________________
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks Robin.
>>> 
>>> Joan
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>> Hi Poncelet,
>>> 
>>> Apologies, I hadn?t understood that you were suggesting I write the letter; but I would be happy to do that today and send it to this list for approval, so we can move quickly on putting this matter behind us.
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hello Robin,
>>>> 
>>>> I just read your very articulated and outlined email in detail, and this was why I suggested you write on behalf an official communication to the appellants based on what you just said.  I belief we can all concur on this soonest, with a short and simple letter then communicate to the appellants.  So I suggest again please Robin, can you draft the letter to the appellants, I hope other colleagues agree with me on this.
>>>> 
>>>> Kind Regards
>>>> 
>>>> Poncelet
>>>> 
>>>> On 25 August 2016 at 15:42, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, under the charter, it is the committee?s job to respond to the appeal.  Since the EC did not reverse the decision to continue with the ongoing election, and instead decided to propose a compromise solution that would allow the election to go forward, but with NOTA counting, we are supposed to communicate that decision to the appellants in writing, and ask if they will accept our compromise, thus withdrawing their appeal.  Although I haven?t received confirmation from all 21 appellants yet, I do expect this proposed compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the appeal to be immediately withdrawn.
>>>> 
>>>> The charter specifically requires that we document these appeal discussions thoroughly.  ?All formal discussions related to the appeal will be done in a transparent manner and be both recorded and have transcripts made.  All documentation related to the appeal, including transcript of formal discussions, will be collected on a public website associated with the NCSG and will be retained for a minimum of 4 years.? (Section 2.4.2.1)
>>>> 
>>>> As I do expect the EC?s compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the appeal withdrawn, the EC should not have to go into the extended negotiations to work out a mutually agreeable solution, followed by the membership vote as outlined in the charter.
>>>> 
>>>> We should send our official compromise proposal to the appellants as soon as possible so the ongoing election is no longer in question of being suspended.  Obviously this official committee response to the appellants must be text that is approved of by the EC as a whole in advance of of it being sent on the EC?s behalf.  I would strongly object to the chair taking it upon himself to undertake this committee task without permitting oversight by the committee as is required in the charter and has been requested by the members.  This critical work is charged to the committee as a whole and needs to be done by the entire committee.
>>>> 
>>>> So a simple and short communication to the appellants officially communicating our proposed compromise should be all we need at this step of the process.  Would any member of the committee like to volunteer to draft the EC?s proposed response to the appellants?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to the appeal made.  I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we resolved it accordingly.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as its resolved, but we need to respond as EC.  I hope all concur with my comment on this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you
>>>>> 
>>>>> Poncelet
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>> Coordinator
>>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240 <tel:%28220%29%204370240>
>>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793 <tel:%28220%29%204390793>
>>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508 <tel:%28220%29%209912508>
>>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
>>>>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
>>>>> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
>>>>> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
>>>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
>>>>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>> Coordinator
>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240 <tel:%28220%29%204370240>
>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793 <tel:%28220%29%204390793>
>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508 <tel:%28220%29%209912508>
>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
>>>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
>>>> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
>>>> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
>>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
>>>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160826/4381b529/attachment-0001.html>


From joankerr  Fri Aug 26 20:20:18 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 13:20:18 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <8347C8F1-081D-43FD-9DC7-45887FB2AD98@ipjustice.org>
References: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<17BEF5FA-BA82-4F3C-977F-88EE1443DA90@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40srDU5y29X8gOA+rBfDQhQjYM_t-6NPB5hip7+CA0YFmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<DD6350FB-495B-4317-940C-B7B93D4E3E3E@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshL7f=vKsoMo5OyWoGpVLCaNL6qqAFa2x3Q4oRKAwg4uuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<0B3E28AE-7A97-4149-93D7-4758AB8E252F@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+410gPWKnuaS_cJj2f-jtv_-zuURm9OP384rkkTk5uxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8CC90A3D-7F15-4839-9FC3-D218BE17730C@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshKrjm_gfdrp1vs2Lta0UJ-eaJy4RmHzKLmNnLjW-G6YGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8347C8F1-081D-43FD-9DC7-45887FB2AD98@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CADwmshLXa6ctGLv3oNj7vJP0L73qZgUnMrR-KnNQR4OJzsetcQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi robin,

Yes, I agree with the changes, and suggest the the line in green is not
needed, as the point as made clearly.

Thanks,
Joan
Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of
the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be deemed elected to the GNSO
Council in this year?s election.

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Thanks, Joan.  I agree with the point you make and that we should clarify
> it below.  But how is this (in purple) below for simpler language in doing
> so?
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> __________________
>
> Dear Appellants,
>
> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>
> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that
> meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in
> lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>
> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
> GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of
> the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be deemed elected to the GNSO
> Council in this year?s election.
>
> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it
> is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election
> as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on
> the ballot.
>
> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>
> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>
> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal
> is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>
> Signed,
> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>
> _________________
>
> On Aug 26, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Robin, All
>
> Thank you for writing the response.  Well done.  I agree that I will send
> the letter on behalf of the committee.  I wanted to add the actual sentence
> we agreed to in the call highlighted in green.  It doesn't change the
> context or tone, however it was what we agreed to do.
>
> Thanks again
> Joan
>
> Dear Appellants,
>
>
> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>
>
> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that
> meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in
> lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>
>
> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
> members, but with the understanding that every candidate *with less votes
> than nota lose, **and the* *s**ame number as nota is enough to get in* on
> the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the
> election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes
> than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to
> the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>
>
> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it
> is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election
> as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on
> the ballot.
>
>
> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>
>
> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>
>
> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal
> is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Great, folks.  I?d suggest that Joan send the letter on behalf of the
>> Committee since she chaired the discussion on the appeal and Tapani is
>> unavailable.
>>
>> In addition to sending the response to the appellants, we should
>> subsequently send a clarifying email to the members from the EC as well, so
>> that there is no further confusion as to what the votes mean.
>>
>> It is important that we have the ballots agreed on before they are sent
>> next year so as to prevent such confusion and misunderstandings.
>> Regardless of whether that was done in the past, our members have asked for
>> oversight of the election process and our charter requires it of us.  We
>> are trying to improve after all.  :-)
>>
>> I made one small (purple) edit to the response below to clarify that the
>> appeal has been satisfactorily resolved.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>> _________________
>>
>> Dear Appellants,
>>
>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
>> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
>> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
>> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>
>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
>> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that
>> meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in
>> lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>
>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
>> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
>> GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of
>> the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council
>> in this year?s election.
>>
>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it
>> is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election
>> as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on
>> the ballot.
>>
>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>
>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>
>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal
>> is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank
>> you.
>>
>> Signed,
>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>
>> _________________
>>
>>
>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG
>> <joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Robin,
>>
>> It looks good to me.  Once the content is agreed on, who actually sends
>> the letter on behalf of the EC.
>>
>> Thank you for writing this.
>>
>> Joan
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Colleagues,
>>>
>>> As requested, I?ve drafted a proposed response from the EC to the
>>> appellants regarding their appeal and our compromise proposal for this
>>> year.  Please have a look below and feel free to suggest changes to the
>>> response.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>> _________________
>>>
>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
>>> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
>>> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
>>> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>
>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
>>> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that
>>> meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in
>>> lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>
>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
>>> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
>>> GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of
>>> the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council
>>> in this year?s election.
>>>
>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it
>>> is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election
>>> as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on
>>> the ballot.
>>>
>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>>
>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>
>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal
>>> is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly withdrawn.  Thank
>>> you.
>>>
>>> Signed,
>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>
>>> _________________
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks Robin.
>>>
>>> Joan
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Poncelet,
>>>>
>>>> Apologies, I hadn?t understood that you were suggesting I write the
>>>> letter; but I would be happy to do that today and send it to this list for
>>>> approval, so we can move quickly on putting this matter behind us.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello Robin,
>>>>
>>>> I just read your very articulated and outlined email in detail, and
>>>> this was why I suggested you write on behalf an official communication to
>>>> the appellants based on what you just said.  I belief we can all concur on
>>>> this soonest, with a short and simple letter then communicate to the
>>>> appellants.  So I suggest again please Robin, can you draft the letter to
>>>> the appellants, I hope other colleagues agree with me on this.
>>>>
>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>
>>>> Poncelet
>>>>
>>>> On 25 August 2016 at 15:42, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, under the charter, it is the committee?s job to respond to the
>>>>> appeal.  Since the EC did not reverse the decision to continue with the
>>>>> ongoing election, and instead decided to propose a compromise solution that
>>>>> would allow the election to go forward, but with NOTA counting, we are
>>>>> supposed to communicate that decision to the appellants in writing, and ask
>>>>> if they will accept our compromise, thus withdrawing their appeal.
>>>>> Although I haven?t received confirmation from all 21 appellants yet, I do
>>>>> expect this proposed compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the
>>>>> appeal to be immediately withdrawn.
>>>>>
>>>>> The charter specifically requires that we document these appeal
>>>>> discussions thoroughly.  ?All formal discussions related to the appeal will
>>>>> be done in a transparent manner and be both recorded and have transcripts
>>>>> made.  All documentation related to the appeal, including transcript of
>>>>> formal discussions, will be collected on a public website associated with
>>>>> the NCSG and will be retained for a minimum of 4 years.? (Section 2.4.2.1)
>>>>>
>>>>> As I do expect the EC?s compromise will be accepted by the appellants
>>>>> and the appeal withdrawn, the EC should not have to go into the extended
>>>>> negotiations to work out a mutually agreeable solution, followed by the
>>>>> membership vote as outlined in the charter.
>>>>>
>>>>> We should send our official compromise proposal to the appellants as
>>>>> soon as possible so the ongoing election is no longer in question of being
>>>>> suspended.  Obviously this official committee response to the appellants
>>>>> must be text that is approved of by the EC as a whole in advance of of it
>>>>> being sent on the EC?s behalf.  I would strongly object to the chair taking
>>>>> it upon himself to undertake this committee task without permitting
>>>>> oversight by the committee as is required in the charter and has been
>>>>> requested by the members.  This critical work is charged to the committee
>>>>> as a whole and needs to be done by the entire committee.
>>>>>
>>>>> So a simple and short communication to the appellants officially
>>>>> communicating our proposed compromise should be all we need at this step of
>>>>> the process.  Would any member of the committee like to volunteer to draft
>>>>> the EC?s proposed response to the appellants?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I
>>>>> just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to
>>>>> the appeal made.  I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we
>>>>> resolved it accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails
>>>>> etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this
>>>>> respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as
>>>>> its resolved, but we need to respond as EC.  I hope all concur with my
>>>>> comment on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>
>>>>> Poncelet
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>> Coordinator
>>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>>>>> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
>>>>> <http://www.waigf.org/>www,insistglobal.com
>>>>> <http://www.itag.gm/>www.npoc.org
>>>>> <http://www.npoc.org/>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>>>> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>> Coordinator
>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>>>> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
>>>> <http://www.waigf.org/>www,insistglobal.com
>>>> <http://www.itag.gm/>www.npoc.org
>>>> <http://www.npoc.org/>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>>> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160826/e005cc34/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Fri Aug 26 21:23:19 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 11:23:19 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <CADwmsh+67CTXubLduaD=S-U2nu1M7GKM3JEXLiSBm9pL1WHc7w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<17BEF5FA-BA82-4F3C-977F-88EE1443DA90@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40srDU5y29X8gOA+rBfDQhQjYM_t-6NPB5hip7+CA0YFmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<DD6350FB-495B-4317-940C-B7B93D4E3E3E@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshL7f=vKsoMo5OyWoGpVLCaNL6qqAFa2x3Q4oRKAwg4uuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<0B3E28AE-7A97-4149-93D7-4758AB8E252F@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+410gPWKnuaS_cJj2f-jtv_-zuURm9OP384rkkTk5uxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8CC90A3D-7F15-4839-9FC3-D218BE17730C@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshKrjm_gfdrp1vs2Lta0UJ-eaJy4RmHzKLmNnLjW-G6YGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8347C8F1-081D-43FD-9DC7-45887FB2AD98@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+67CTXubLduaD=S-U2nu1M7GKM3JEXLiSBm9pL1WHc7w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B553D02E-176B-437A-8894-A61358469C21@ipjustice.org>

Hi Joan,

As members are looking for clarity in what we are doing, I think it is important that we include the phrase which explains the intent of the meaning.  So I would not agree to remove the phrase which clarifies the heart of what we are trying to achieve with this interpretation: clarifying that every candidate faces possible rejection is critical in this appeal.  

On the other point, the language proposed is mathematically logical in that the number of any candidate votes that are equal to NOTA is therefore NOT less less than NOTA, so there really isn?t any other possible interpretation of that phrase other than "a candidate who ties with NOTA is elected.?  So I believe we agree on the point, only the need to restate it given the new formulation which clarified our agreement on that point.

Thanks,
Robin

> On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:33 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Robin,
> 
> I am not sure if this was in the last email.  So I am sending it again.  Like I said I don't think that the sentence in green needs to be included.  Also we should be clear that less means not elected and same as nota means elected.  Just so it's clear for everyone.
> See below
> Joan
> 
> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
> 
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
> Thanks, Joan.  I agree with the point you make and that we should clarify it below.  But how is this (in purple) below for simpler language in doing so?
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> __________________
> 
> Dear Appellants,
> 
> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
> 
> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
> 
> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
> 
> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  
> 
> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
> 
> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
> 
> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
> 
> Signed,
> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
> 
> _________________
> 
>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Robin, All
>> 
>> Thank you for writing the response.  Well done.  I agree that I will send the letter on behalf of the committee.  I wanted to add the actual sentence we agreed to in the call highlighted in green.  It doesn't change the context or tone, however it was what we agreed to do.
>> 
>> Thanks again
>> Joan
>> 
>> Dear Appellants,
>> 
>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>> 
>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>> 
>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate with less votes than nota lose, and the same number as nota is enough to get in on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>> 
>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  
>> 
>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
>> 
>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>> 
>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>>   
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>> Great, folks.  I?d suggest that Joan send the letter on behalf of the Committee since she chaired the discussion on the appeal and Tapani is unavailable.
>> 
>> In addition to sending the response to the appellants, we should subsequently send a clarifying email to the members from the EC as well, so that there is no further confusion as to what the votes mean.  
>> 
>> It is important that we have the ballots agreed on before they are sent next year so as to prevent such confusion and misunderstandings.  Regardless of whether that was done in the past, our members have asked for oversight of the election process and our charter requires it of us.  We are trying to improve after all.  :-)
>> 
>> I made one small (purple) edit to the response below to clarify that the appeal has been satisfactorily resolved.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> _________________
>> 
>> Dear Appellants,
>> 
>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>> 
>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>> 
>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>> 
>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  
>> 
>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
>> 
>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>> 
>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>> 
>> Signed,
>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>> 
>> _________________
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Robin,
>>> 
>>> It looks good to me.  Once the content is agreed on, who actually sends the letter on behalf of the EC.
>>> 
>>> Thank you for writing this.
>>> 
>>> Joan
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>> Colleagues,
>>> 
>>> As requested, I?ve drafted a proposed response from the EC to the appellants regarding their appeal and our compromise proposal for this year.  Please have a look below and feel free to suggest changes to the response.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> _________________
>>> 
>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>> 
>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>> 
>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>> 
>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  
>>> 
>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
>>> 
>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>> 
>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly withdrawn.  Thank you.
>>> 
>>> Signed,
>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>> 
>>> _________________
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks Robin.
>>>> 
>>>> Joan
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Poncelet,
>>>> 
>>>> Apologies, I hadn?t understood that you were suggesting I write the letter; but I would be happy to do that today and send it to this list for approval, so we can move quickly on putting this matter behind us.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Robin
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hello Robin,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I just read your very articulated and outlined email in detail, and this was why I suggested you write on behalf an official communication to the appellants based on what you just said.  I belief we can all concur on this soonest, with a short and simple letter then communicate to the appellants.  So I suggest again please Robin, can you draft the letter to the appellants, I hope other colleagues agree with me on this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>> 
>>>>> Poncelet
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 25 August 2016 at 15:42, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, under the charter, it is the committee?s job to respond to the appeal.  Since the EC did not reverse the decision to continue with the ongoing election, and instead decided to propose a compromise solution that would allow the election to go forward, but with NOTA counting, we are supposed to communicate that decision to the appellants in writing, and ask if they will accept our compromise, thus withdrawing their appeal.  Although I haven?t received confirmation from all 21 appellants yet, I do expect this proposed compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the appeal to be immediately withdrawn.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The charter specifically requires that we document these appeal discussions thoroughly.  ?All formal discussions related to the appeal will be done in a transparent manner and be both recorded and have transcripts made.  All documentation related to the appeal, including transcript of formal discussions, will be collected on a public website associated with the NCSG and will be retained for a minimum of 4 years.? (Section 2.4.2.1)
>>>>> 
>>>>> As I do expect the EC?s compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the appeal withdrawn, the EC should not have to go into the extended negotiations to work out a mutually agreeable solution, followed by the membership vote as outlined in the charter.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We should send our official compromise proposal to the appellants as soon as possible so the ongoing election is no longer in question of being suspended.  Obviously this official committee response to the appellants must be text that is approved of by the EC as a whole in advance of of it being sent on the EC?s behalf.  I would strongly object to the chair taking it upon himself to undertake this committee task without permitting oversight by the committee as is required in the charter and has been requested by the members.  This critical work is charged to the committee as a whole and needs to be done by the entire committee.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So a simple and short communication to the appellants officially communicating our proposed compromise should be all we need at this step of the process.  Would any member of the committee like to volunteer to draft the EC?s proposed response to the appellants?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to the appeal made.  I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we resolved it accordingly.  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as its resolved, but we need to respond as EC.  I hope all concur with my comment on this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Poncelet
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>>> Coordinator
>>>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240 <tel:%28220%29%204370240>
>>>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793 <tel:%28220%29%204390793>
>>>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508 <tel:%28220%29%209912508>
>>>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>>> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
>>>>>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
>>>>>> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
>>>>>> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
>>>>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
>>>>>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>> Coordinator
>>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240 <tel:%28220%29%204370240>
>>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793 <tel:%28220%29%204390793>
>>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508 <tel:%28220%29%209912508>
>>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
>>>>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
>>>>> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
>>>>> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
>>>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
>>>>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160826/f4fc8e65/attachment-0001.html>


From joankerr  Fri Aug 26 21:34:36 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 14:34:36 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <B553D02E-176B-437A-8894-A61358469C21@ipjustice.org>
References: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<17BEF5FA-BA82-4F3C-977F-88EE1443DA90@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40srDU5y29X8gOA+rBfDQhQjYM_t-6NPB5hip7+CA0YFmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<DD6350FB-495B-4317-940C-B7B93D4E3E3E@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshL7f=vKsoMo5OyWoGpVLCaNL6qqAFa2x3Q4oRKAwg4uuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<0B3E28AE-7A97-4149-93D7-4758AB8E252F@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+410gPWKnuaS_cJj2f-jtv_-zuURm9OP384rkkTk5uxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8CC90A3D-7F15-4839-9FC3-D218BE17730C@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshKrjm_gfdrp1vs2Lta0UJ-eaJy4RmHzKLmNnLjW-G6YGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8347C8F1-081D-43FD-9DC7-45887FB2AD98@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+67CTXubLduaD=S-U2nu1M7GKM3JEXLiSBm9pL1WHc7w@mail.gmail.com>
	<B553D02E-176B-437A-8894-A61358469C21@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CADwmsh+1Tu8jU4jL7CbjNLeTgKWscgY47seXKQ=mzunWYQuFXA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robin,

Ok, if you feel that it's important that it is spelt out, I agree.  I get
what you say regarding the mathematicalIy logical, but I really do think we
should clearly say that if the votes are equal with the nota votes, it
means that the candidate wins.  It clearly says it and that's I thinks it's
important to say rather than leave it to someone interpretation.

Thanks
Joan

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Hi Joan,
>
> As members are looking for clarity in what we are doing, I think it is
> important that we include the phrase which explains the intent of the
> meaning.  So I would not agree to remove the phrase which clarifies the
> heart of what we are trying to achieve with this interpretation: clarifying
> that every candidate faces possible rejection is critical in this appeal.
>
> On the other point, the language proposed is mathematically logical in
> that the number of any candidate votes that are equal to NOTA is therefore
> NOT less less than NOTA, so there really isn?t any other possible
> interpretation of that phrase other than "a candidate who ties with NOTA is
> elected.?  So I believe we agree on the point, only the need to restate it
> given the new formulation which clarified our agreement on that point.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:33 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Robin,
>
> I am not sure if this was in the last email.  So I am sending it again.
> Like I said I don't think that the sentence in green needs to be included.
> Also we should be clear that less means not elected and same as nota means
> elected.  Just so it's clear for everyone.
> See below
> Joan
>
> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election
> for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive less votes than ?None
> of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be deemed elected to the
> GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Joan.  I agree with the point you make and that we should clarify
>> it below.  But how is this (in purple) below for simpler language in doing
>> so?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>> __________________
>>
>> Dear Appellants,
>>
>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
>> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
>> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
>> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>
>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
>> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that
>> meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in
>> lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>
>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
>> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
>> GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of
>> the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be deemed elected to the GNSO
>> Council in this year?s election.
>>
>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it
>> is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election
>> as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on
>> the ballot.
>>
>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>
>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>
>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal
>> is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>>
>> Signed,
>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>
>> _________________
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Robin, All
>>
>> Thank you for writing the response.  Well done.  I agree that I will send
>> the letter on behalf of the committee.  I wanted to add the actual sentence
>> we agreed to in the call highlighted in green.  It doesn't change the
>> context or tone, however it was what we agreed to do.
>>
>> Thanks again
>> Joan
>>
>> Dear Appellants,
>>
>>
>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
>> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
>> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
>> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>
>>
>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
>> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that
>> meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants
>> in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>
>>
>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate *with less
>> votes than nota lose, **and the* *s**ame number as nota is enough to get
>> in* on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with
>> respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive
>> more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed
>> elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>
>>
>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it
>> is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election
>> as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on
>> the ballot.
>>
>>
>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>
>>
>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>
>>
>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal
>> is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank
>> you.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Great, folks.  I?d suggest that Joan send the letter on behalf of the
>>> Committee since she chaired the discussion on the appeal and Tapani is
>>> unavailable.
>>>
>>> In addition to sending the response to the appellants, we should
>>> subsequently send a clarifying email to the members from the EC as well, so
>>> that there is no further confusion as to what the votes mean.
>>>
>>> It is important that we have the ballots agreed on before they are sent
>>> next year so as to prevent such confusion and misunderstandings.
>>> Regardless of whether that was done in the past, our members have asked for
>>> oversight of the election process and our charter requires it of us.  We
>>> are trying to improve after all.  :-)
>>>
>>> I made one small (purple) edit to the response below to clarify that the
>>> appeal has been satisfactorily resolved.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>> _________________
>>>
>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>
>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
>>> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
>>> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
>>> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>
>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
>>> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that
>>> meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in
>>> lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>
>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
>>> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
>>> GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of
>>> the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council
>>> in this year?s election.
>>>
>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it
>>> is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election
>>> as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on
>>> the ballot.
>>>
>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>>
>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>
>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal
>>> is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank
>>> you.
>>>
>>> Signed,
>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>
>>> _________________
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG
>>> <joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Robin,
>>>
>>> It looks good to me.  Once the content is agreed on, who actually sends
>>> the letter on behalf of the EC.
>>>
>>> Thank you for writing this.
>>>
>>> Joan
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> As requested, I?ve drafted a proposed response from the EC to the
>>>> appellants regarding their appeal and our compromise proposal for this
>>>> year.  Please have a look below and feel free to suggest changes to the
>>>> response.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>> _________________
>>>>
>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
>>>> members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016
>>>> regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue
>>>> with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>>
>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24
>>>> August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In
>>>> that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants
>>>> in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>>>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
>>>> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
>>>> GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of
>>>> the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council
>>>> in this year?s election.
>>>>
>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
>>>> it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
>>>> election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and
>>>> confusion on the ballot.
>>>>
>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>>>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>>>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>>>
>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>>>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>>
>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
>>>> proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly
>>>> withdrawn.  Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> Signed,
>>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>>
>>>> _________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Robin.
>>>>
>>>> Joan
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Poncelet,
>>>>>
>>>>> Apologies, I hadn?t understood that you were suggesting I write the
>>>>> letter; but I would be happy to do that today and send it to this list for
>>>>> approval, so we can move quickly on putting this matter behind us.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello Robin,
>>>>>
>>>>> I just read your very articulated and outlined email in detail, and
>>>>> this was why I suggested you write on behalf an official communication to
>>>>> the appellants based on what you just said.  I belief we can all concur on
>>>>> this soonest, with a short and simple letter then communicate to the
>>>>> appellants.  So I suggest again please Robin, can you draft the letter to
>>>>> the appellants, I hope other colleagues agree with me on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Poncelet
>>>>>
>>>>> On 25 August 2016 at 15:42, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, under the charter, it is the committee?s job to respond to the
>>>>>> appeal.  Since the EC did not reverse the decision to continue with the
>>>>>> ongoing election, and instead decided to propose a compromise solution that
>>>>>> would allow the election to go forward, but with NOTA counting, we are
>>>>>> supposed to communicate that decision to the appellants in writing, and ask
>>>>>> if they will accept our compromise, thus withdrawing their appeal.
>>>>>> Although I haven?t received confirmation from all 21 appellants yet, I do
>>>>>> expect this proposed compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the
>>>>>> appeal to be immediately withdrawn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The charter specifically requires that we document these appeal
>>>>>> discussions thoroughly.  ?All formal discussions related to the appeal will
>>>>>> be done in a transparent manner and be both recorded and have transcripts
>>>>>> made.  All documentation related to the appeal, including transcript of
>>>>>> formal discussions, will be collected on a public website associated with
>>>>>> the NCSG and will be retained for a minimum of 4 years.? (Section 2.4.2.1)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I do expect the EC?s compromise will be accepted by the appellants
>>>>>> and the appeal withdrawn, the EC should not have to go into the extended
>>>>>> negotiations to work out a mutually agreeable solution, followed by the
>>>>>> membership vote as outlined in the charter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We should send our official compromise proposal to the appellants as
>>>>>> soon as possible so the ongoing election is no longer in question of being
>>>>>> suspended.  Obviously this official committee response to the appellants
>>>>>> must be text that is approved of by the EC as a whole in advance of of it
>>>>>> being sent on the EC?s behalf.  I would strongly object to the chair taking
>>>>>> it upon himself to undertake this committee task without permitting
>>>>>> oversight by the committee as is required in the charter and has been
>>>>>> requested by the members.  This critical work is charged to the committee
>>>>>> as a whole and needs to be done by the entire committee.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So a simple and short communication to the appellants officially
>>>>>> communicating our proposed compromise should be all we need at this step of
>>>>>> the process.  Would any member of the committee like to volunteer to draft
>>>>>> the EC?s proposed response to the appellants?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I
>>>>>> just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to
>>>>>> the appeal made.  I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we
>>>>>> resolved it accordingly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails
>>>>>> etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this
>>>>>> respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as
>>>>>> its resolved, but we need to respond as EC.  I hope all concur with my
>>>>>> comment on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Poncelet
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>>> Coordinator
>>>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>>>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>>>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>>>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>>>>>> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
>>>>>> <http://www.waigf.org/>www,insistglobal.com
>>>>>> <http://www.itag.gm/>www.npoc.org
>>>>>> <http://www.npoc.org/>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>>>>> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>> Coordinator
>>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>>>>> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
>>>>> <http://www.waigf.org/>www,insistglobal.com
>>>>> <http://www.itag.gm/>www.npoc.org
>>>>> <http://www.npoc.org/>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>>>> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160826/884900e6/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Fri Aug 26 21:50:01 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 11:50:01 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <CADwmsh+1Tu8jU4jL7CbjNLeTgKWscgY47seXKQ=mzunWYQuFXA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<17BEF5FA-BA82-4F3C-977F-88EE1443DA90@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40srDU5y29X8gOA+rBfDQhQjYM_t-6NPB5hip7+CA0YFmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<DD6350FB-495B-4317-940C-B7B93D4E3E3E@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshL7f=vKsoMo5OyWoGpVLCaNL6qqAFa2x3Q4oRKAwg4uuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<0B3E28AE-7A97-4149-93D7-4758AB8E252F@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+410gPWKnuaS_cJj2f-jtv_-zuURm9OP384rkkTk5uxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8CC90A3D-7F15-4839-9FC3-D218BE17730C@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshKrjm_gfdrp1vs2Lta0UJ-eaJy4RmHzKLmNnLjW-G6YGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8347C8F1-081D-43FD-9DC7-45887FB2AD98@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+67CTXubLduaD=S-U2nu1M7GKM3JEXLiSBm9pL1WHc7w@mail.gmail.com>
	<B553D02E-176B-437A-8894-A61358469C21@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+1Tu8jU4jL7CbjNLeTgKWscgY47seXKQ=mzunWYQuFXA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6A10D8BB-790B-4976-8B12-CCBA3D6C1DB2@ipjustice.org>

Thanks, Joan.  Ok, how about the following (change in purple)?

Thanks,
Robin

_________________

Dear Appellants,

This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.

The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.

Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.  Any candidate who ties with NOTA in number of votes is elected.

We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  

The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  

We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.

Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.

Signed,
Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group

_________________

> On Aug 26, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Robin,
> 
> Ok, if you feel that it's important that it is spelt out, I agree.  I get what you say regarding the mathematicalIy logical, but I really do think we should clearly say that if the votes are equal with the nota votes, it means that the candidate wins.  It clearly says it and that's I thinks it's important to say rather than leave it to someone interpretation.
> 
> Thanks
> Joan
> 
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
> Hi Joan,
> 
> As members are looking for clarity in what we are doing, I think it is important that we include the phrase which explains the intent of the meaning.  So I would not agree to remove the phrase which clarifies the heart of what we are trying to achieve with this interpretation: clarifying that every candidate faces possible rejection is critical in this appeal.  
> 
> On the other point, the language proposed is mathematically logical in that the number of any candidate votes that are equal to NOTA is therefore NOT less less than NOTA, so there really isn?t any other possible interpretation of that phrase other than "a candidate who ties with NOTA is elected.?  So I believe we agree on the point, only the need to restate it given the new formulation which clarified our agreement on that point.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:33 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Robin,
>> 
>> I am not sure if this was in the last email.  So I am sending it again.  Like I said I don't think that the sentence in green needs to be included.  Also we should be clear that less means not elected and same as nota means elected.  Just so it's clear for everyone.
>> See below
>> Joan
>> 
>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>> Thanks, Joan.  I agree with the point you make and that we should clarify it below.  But how is this (in purple) below for simpler language in doing so?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> __________________
>> 
>> Dear Appellants,
>> 
>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>> 
>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>> 
>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>> 
>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  
>> 
>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
>> 
>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>> 
>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>> 
>> Signed,
>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>> 
>> _________________
>> 
>>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Robin, All
>>> 
>>> Thank you for writing the response.  Well done.  I agree that I will send the letter on behalf of the committee.  I wanted to add the actual sentence we agreed to in the call highlighted in green.  It doesn't change the context or tone, however it was what we agreed to do.
>>> 
>>> Thanks again
>>> Joan
>>> 
>>> Dear Appellants,
>>> 
>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>> 
>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>> 
>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate with less votes than nota lose, and the same number as nota is enough to get in on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>> 
>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  
>>> 
>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
>>> 
>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>> 
>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>>>   
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>> Great, folks.  I?d suggest that Joan send the letter on behalf of the Committee since she chaired the discussion on the appeal and Tapani is unavailable.
>>> 
>>> In addition to sending the response to the appellants, we should subsequently send a clarifying email to the members from the EC as well, so that there is no further confusion as to what the votes mean.  
>>> 
>>> It is important that we have the ballots agreed on before they are sent next year so as to prevent such confusion and misunderstandings.  Regardless of whether that was done in the past, our members have asked for oversight of the election process and our charter requires it of us.  We are trying to improve after all.  :-)
>>> 
>>> I made one small (purple) edit to the response below to clarify that the appeal has been satisfactorily resolved.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> _________________
>>> 
>>> Dear Appellants,
>>> 
>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>> 
>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>> 
>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>> 
>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  
>>> 
>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
>>> 
>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>> 
>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>>> 
>>> Signed,
>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>> 
>>> _________________
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>> 
>>>> It looks good to me.  Once the content is agreed on, who actually sends the letter on behalf of the EC.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for writing this.
>>>> 
>>>> Joan
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>> Colleagues,
>>>> 
>>>> As requested, I?ve drafted a proposed response from the EC to the appellants regarding their appeal and our compromise proposal for this year.  Please have a look below and feel free to suggest changes to the response.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>> 
>>>> _________________
>>>> 
>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>> 
>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>> 
>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>> 
>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot. 
>>>> 
>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
>>>> 
>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>> 
>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly withdrawn.  Thank you.
>>>> 
>>>> Signed,
>>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>> 
>>>> _________________
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks Robin.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Joan
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Poncelet,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Apologies, I hadn?t understood that you were suggesting I write the letter; but I would be happy to do that today and send it to this list for approval, so we can move quickly on putting this matter behind us.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hello Robin,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I just read your very articulated and outlined email in detail, and this was why I suggested you write on behalf an official communication to the appellants based on what you just said.  I belief we can all concur on this soonest, with a short and simple letter then communicate to the appellants.  So I suggest again please Robin, can you draft the letter to the appellants, I hope other colleagues agree with me on this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Poncelet
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 25 August 2016 at 15:42, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes, under the charter, it is the committee?s job to respond to the appeal.  Since the EC did not reverse the decision to continue with the ongoing election, and instead decided to propose a compromise solution that would allow the election to go forward, but with NOTA counting, we are supposed to communicate that decision to the appellants in writing, and ask if they will accept our compromise, thus withdrawing their appeal.  Although I haven?t received confirmation from all 21 appellants yet, I do expect this proposed compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the appeal to be immediately withdrawn.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The charter specifically requires that we document these appeal discussions thoroughly.  ?All formal discussions related to the appeal will be done in a transparent manner and be both recorded and have transcripts made.  All documentation related to the appeal, including transcript of formal discussions, will be collected on a public website associated with the NCSG and will be retained for a minimum of 4 years.? (Section 2.4.2.1)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As I do expect the EC?s compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the appeal withdrawn, the EC should not have to go into the extended negotiations to work out a mutually agreeable solution, followed by the membership vote as outlined in the charter.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We should send our official compromise proposal to the appellants as soon as possible so the ongoing election is no longer in question of being suspended.  Obviously this official committee response to the appellants must be text that is approved of by the EC as a whole in advance of of it being sent on the EC?s behalf.  I would strongly object to the chair taking it upon himself to undertake this committee task without permitting oversight by the committee as is required in the charter and has been requested by the members.  This critical work is charged to the committee as a whole and needs to be done by the entire committee.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So a simple and short communication to the appellants officially communicating our proposed compromise should be all we need at this step of the process.  Would any member of the committee like to volunteer to draft the EC?s proposed response to the appellants?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to the appeal made.  I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we resolved it accordingly.  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as its resolved, but we need to respond as EC.  I hope all concur with my comment on this.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Poncelet
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>>>> Coordinator
>>>>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240 <tel:%28220%29%204370240>
>>>>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793 <tel:%28220%29%204390793>
>>>>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508 <tel:%28220%29%209912508>
>>>>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>>>> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
>>>>>>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
>>>>>>> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
>>>>>>> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
>>>>>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
>>>>>>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>>> Coordinator
>>>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240 <tel:%28220%29%204370240>
>>>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793 <tel:%28220%29%204390793>
>>>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508 <tel:%28220%29%209912508>
>>>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>>> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
>>>>>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
>>>>>> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
>>>>>> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
>>>>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
>>>>>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160826/91962938/attachment-0001.html>


From joankerr  Fri Aug 26 22:13:49 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 15:13:49 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <6A10D8BB-790B-4976-8B12-CCBA3D6C1DB2@ipjustice.org>
References: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<17BEF5FA-BA82-4F3C-977F-88EE1443DA90@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40srDU5y29X8gOA+rBfDQhQjYM_t-6NPB5hip7+CA0YFmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<DD6350FB-495B-4317-940C-B7B93D4E3E3E@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshL7f=vKsoMo5OyWoGpVLCaNL6qqAFa2x3Q4oRKAwg4uuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<0B3E28AE-7A97-4149-93D7-4758AB8E252F@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+410gPWKnuaS_cJj2f-jtv_-zuURm9OP384rkkTk5uxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8CC90A3D-7F15-4839-9FC3-D218BE17730C@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshKrjm_gfdrp1vs2Lta0UJ-eaJy4RmHzKLmNnLjW-G6YGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8347C8F1-081D-43FD-9DC7-45887FB2AD98@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+67CTXubLduaD=S-U2nu1M7GKM3JEXLiSBm9pL1WHc7w@mail.gmail.com>
	<B553D02E-176B-437A-8894-A61358469C21@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+1Tu8jU4jL7CbjNLeTgKWscgY47seXKQ=mzunWYQuFXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<6A10D8BB-790B-4976-8B12-CCBA3D6C1DB2@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CADwmshLSi3_fDH_OEP3UegLLN5Uuq7hQQmGGUfD0kYDK5N3z8Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robin,

Yes that works.  Ok. question: where does the letter go?

Thanks for the work Robin, much appreciated.
Joan

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Thanks, Joan.  Ok, how about the following (change in purple)?
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> _________________
>
> Dear Appellants,
>
> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>
> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that
> meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in
> lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>
> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
> GNSO Council, those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of the
> Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be elected to the GNSO Council in
> this year?s election.  Any candidate who ties with NOTA in number of
> votes is elected.
>
> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it
> is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election
> as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on
> the ballot.
>
> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>
> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>
> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal
> is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>
> Signed,
> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>
> _________________
>
> On Aug 26, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Robin,
>
> Ok, if you feel that it's important that it is spelt out, I agree.  I get
> what you say regarding the mathematicalIy logical, but I really do think we
> should clearly say that if the votes are equal with the nota votes, it
> means that the candidate wins.  It clearly says it and that's I thinks it's
> important to say rather than leave it to someone interpretation.
>
> Thanks
> Joan
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Joan,
>>
>> As members are looking for clarity in what we are doing, I think it is
>> important that we include the phrase which explains the intent of the
>> meaning.  So I would not agree to remove the phrase which clarifies the
>> heart of what we are trying to achieve with this interpretation: clarifying
>> that every candidate faces possible rejection is critical in this appeal.
>>
>> On the other point, the language proposed is mathematically logical in
>> that the number of any candidate votes that are equal to NOTA is therefore
>> NOT less less than NOTA, so there really isn?t any other possible
>> interpretation of that phrase other than "a candidate who ties with NOTA is
>> elected.?  So I believe we agree on the point, only the need to restate it
>> given the new formulation which clarified our agreement on that point.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:33 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Robin,
>>
>> I am not sure if this was in the last email.  So I am sending it again.
>> Like I said I don't think that the sentence in green needs to be included.
>> Also we should be clear that less means not elected and same as nota means
>> elected.  Just so it's clear for everyone.
>> See below
>> Joan
>>
>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
>> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election
>> for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive less votes than
>> ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be deemed elected to
>> the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Joan.  I agree with the point you make and that we should
>>> clarify it below.  But how is this (in purple) below for simpler language
>>> in doing so?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>> __________________
>>>
>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>
>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
>>> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
>>> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
>>> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>
>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
>>> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that
>>> meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in
>>> lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>
>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
>>> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
>>> GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive less votes than ?None
>>> of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be deemed elected to the
>>> GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>
>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it
>>> is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election
>>> as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on
>>> the ballot.
>>>
>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>>
>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>
>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal
>>> is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>>>
>>> Signed,
>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>
>>> _________________
>>>
>>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Robin, All
>>>
>>> Thank you for writing the response.  Well done.  I agree that I will
>>> send the letter on behalf of the committee.  I wanted to add the actual
>>> sentence we agreed to in the call highlighted in green.  It doesn't change
>>> the context or tone, however it was what we agreed to do.
>>>
>>> Thanks again
>>> Joan
>>>
>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>
>>>
>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
>>> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
>>> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
>>> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>
>>>
>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
>>> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that
>>> meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants
>>> in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>
>>>
>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate *with less
>>> votes than nota lose, **and the* *s**ame number as nota is enough to
>>> get in* on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with
>>> respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive
>>> more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed
>>> elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>
>>>
>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it
>>> is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election
>>> as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on
>>> the ballot.
>>>
>>>
>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>>
>>>
>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>
>>>
>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal
>>> is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank
>>> you.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Great, folks.  I?d suggest that Joan send the letter on behalf of the
>>>> Committee since she chaired the discussion on the appeal and Tapani is
>>>> unavailable.
>>>>
>>>> In addition to sending the response to the appellants, we should
>>>> subsequently send a clarifying email to the members from the EC as well, so
>>>> that there is no further confusion as to what the votes mean.
>>>>
>>>> It is important that we have the ballots agreed on before they are sent
>>>> next year so as to prevent such confusion and misunderstandings.
>>>> Regardless of whether that was done in the past, our members have asked for
>>>> oversight of the election process and our charter requires it of us.  We
>>>> are trying to improve after all.  :-)
>>>>
>>>> I made one small (purple) edit to the response below to clarify that
>>>> the appeal has been satisfactorily resolved.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>> _________________
>>>>
>>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>>
>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
>>>> members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016
>>>> regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue
>>>> with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>>
>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24
>>>> August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In
>>>> that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants
>>>> in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>>>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
>>>> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
>>>> GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of
>>>> the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council
>>>> in this year?s election.
>>>>
>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
>>>> it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
>>>> election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and
>>>> confusion on the ballot.
>>>>
>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>>>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>>>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>>>
>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>>>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>>
>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
>>>> proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> Signed,
>>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>>
>>>> _________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG
>>>> <joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>>
>>>> It looks good to me.  Once the content is agreed on, who actually sends
>>>> the letter on behalf of the EC.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for writing this.
>>>>
>>>> Joan
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Colleagues,
>>>>>
>>>>> As requested, I?ve drafted a proposed response from the EC to the
>>>>> appellants regarding their appeal and our compromise proposal for this
>>>>> year.  Please have a look below and feel free to suggest changes to the
>>>>> response.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>>
>>>>> _________________
>>>>>
>>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
>>>>> members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016
>>>>> regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue
>>>>> with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>>>
>>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24
>>>>> August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In
>>>>> that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants
>>>>> in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>>>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>>>>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
>>>>> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
>>>>> GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of
>>>>> the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council
>>>>> in this year?s election.
>>>>>
>>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
>>>>> it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
>>>>> election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and
>>>>> confusion on the ballot.
>>>>>
>>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>>>>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>>>>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>>>>
>>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>>>>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
>>>>> proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly
>>>>> withdrawn.  Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed,
>>>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>>>
>>>>> _________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Robin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Poncelet,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apologies, I hadn?t understood that you were suggesting I write the
>>>>>> letter; but I would be happy to do that today and send it to this list for
>>>>>> approval, so we can move quickly on putting this matter behind us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello Robin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just read your very articulated and outlined email in detail, and
>>>>>> this was why I suggested you write on behalf an official communication to
>>>>>> the appellants based on what you just said.  I belief we can all concur on
>>>>>> this soonest, with a short and simple letter then communicate to the
>>>>>> appellants.  So I suggest again please Robin, can you draft the letter to
>>>>>> the appellants, I hope other colleagues agree with me on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Poncelet
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 25 August 2016 at 15:42, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, under the charter, it is the committee?s job to respond to the
>>>>>>> appeal.  Since the EC did not reverse the decision to continue with the
>>>>>>> ongoing election, and instead decided to propose a compromise solution that
>>>>>>> would allow the election to go forward, but with NOTA counting, we are
>>>>>>> supposed to communicate that decision to the appellants in writing, and ask
>>>>>>> if they will accept our compromise, thus withdrawing their appeal.
>>>>>>> Although I haven?t received confirmation from all 21 appellants yet, I do
>>>>>>> expect this proposed compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the
>>>>>>> appeal to be immediately withdrawn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The charter specifically requires that we document these appeal
>>>>>>> discussions thoroughly.  ?All formal discussions related to the appeal will
>>>>>>> be done in a transparent manner and be both recorded and have transcripts
>>>>>>> made.  All documentation related to the appeal, including transcript of
>>>>>>> formal discussions, will be collected on a public website associated with
>>>>>>> the NCSG and will be retained for a minimum of 4 years.? (Section 2.4.2.1)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I do expect the EC?s compromise will be accepted by the
>>>>>>> appellants and the appeal withdrawn, the EC should not have to go into the
>>>>>>> extended negotiations to work out a mutually agreeable solution, followed
>>>>>>> by the membership vote as outlined in the charter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We should send our official compromise proposal to the appellants as
>>>>>>> soon as possible so the ongoing election is no longer in question of being
>>>>>>> suspended.  Obviously this official committee response to the appellants
>>>>>>> must be text that is approved of by the EC as a whole in advance of of it
>>>>>>> being sent on the EC?s behalf.  I would strongly object to the chair taking
>>>>>>> it upon himself to undertake this committee task without permitting
>>>>>>> oversight by the committee as is required in the charter and has been
>>>>>>> requested by the members.  This critical work is charged to the committee
>>>>>>> as a whole and needs to be done by the entire committee.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So a simple and short communication to the appellants officially
>>>>>>> communicating our proposed compromise should be all we need at this step of
>>>>>>> the process.  Would any member of the committee like to volunteer to draft
>>>>>>> the EC?s proposed response to the appellants?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand,
>>>>>>> I just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response
>>>>>>> to the appeal made.  I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we
>>>>>>> resolved it accordingly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails
>>>>>>> etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this
>>>>>>> respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as
>>>>>>> its resolved, but we need to respond as EC.  I hope all concur with my
>>>>>>> comment on this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Poncelet
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>>>> Coordinator
>>>>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>>>>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>>>>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>>>>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>>>>>>> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
>>>>>>> <http://www.waigf.org/>www,insistglobal.com
>>>>>>> <http://www.itag.gm/>www.npoc.org
>>>>>>> <http://www.npoc.org/>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>>>>>> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>>> Coordinator
>>>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>>>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>>>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>>>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>>>>>> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
>>>>>> <http://www.waigf.org/>www,insistglobal.com
>>>>>> <http://www.itag.gm/>www.npoc.org
>>>>>> <http://www.npoc.org/>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>>>>> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160826/1c53f02e/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Fri Aug 26 23:05:13 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 13:05:13 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <CADwmshLSi3_fDH_OEP3UegLLN5Uuq7hQQmGGUfD0kYDK5N3z8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<17BEF5FA-BA82-4F3C-977F-88EE1443DA90@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40srDU5y29X8gOA+rBfDQhQjYM_t-6NPB5hip7+CA0YFmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<DD6350FB-495B-4317-940C-B7B93D4E3E3E@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshL7f=vKsoMo5OyWoGpVLCaNL6qqAFa2x3Q4oRKAwg4uuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<0B3E28AE-7A97-4149-93D7-4758AB8E252F@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+410gPWKnuaS_cJj2f-jtv_-zuURm9OP384rkkTk5uxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8CC90A3D-7F15-4839-9FC3-D218BE17730C@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshKrjm_gfdrp1vs2Lta0UJ-eaJy4RmHzKLmNnLjW-G6YGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8347C8F1-081D-43FD-9DC7-45887FB2AD98@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+67CTXubLduaD=S-U2nu1M7GKM3JEXLiSBm9pL1WHc7w@mail.gmail.com>
	<B553D02E-176B-437A-8894-A61358469C21@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+1Tu8jU4jL7CbjNLeTgKWscgY47seXKQ=mzunWYQuFXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<6A10D8BB-790B-4976-8B12-CCBA3D6C1DB2@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshLSi3_fDH_OEP3UegLLN5Uuq7hQQmGGUfD0kYDK5N3z8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CE61AFB6-4F04-4A5C-956E-709B199AB416@ipjustice.org>

Thanks, Joan.  I?d suggest we send it to the entire membership list, as all NCSG members are on that list and the original appeal went to the members? list as well, it would be good practice to inform the entire membership of the outcome of the decision.

Thanks again,
Robin


> On Aug 26, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Robin,
> 
> Yes that works.  Ok. question: where does the letter go?
> 
> Thanks for the work Robin, much appreciated.
> Joan
> 
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
> Thanks, Joan.  Ok, how about the following (change in purple)?
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> _________________
> 
> Dear Appellants,
> 
> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
> 
> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
> 
> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.  Any candidate who ties with NOTA in number of votes is elected.
> 
> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  
> 
> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
> 
> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
> 
> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
> 
> Signed,
> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
> 
> _________________
> 
>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Robin,
>> 
>> Ok, if you feel that it's important that it is spelt out, I agree.  I get what you say regarding the mathematicalIy logical, but I really do think we should clearly say that if the votes are equal with the nota votes, it means that the candidate wins.  It clearly says it and that's I thinks it's important to say rather than leave it to someone interpretation.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Joan
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>> Hi Joan,
>> 
>> As members are looking for clarity in what we are doing, I think it is important that we include the phrase which explains the intent of the meaning.  So I would not agree to remove the phrase which clarifies the heart of what we are trying to achieve with this interpretation: clarifying that every candidate faces possible rejection is critical in this appeal.  
>> 
>> On the other point, the language proposed is mathematically logical in that the number of any candidate votes that are equal to NOTA is therefore NOT less less than NOTA, so there really isn?t any other possible interpretation of that phrase other than "a candidate who ties with NOTA is elected.?  So I believe we agree on the point, only the need to restate it given the new formulation which clarified our agreement on that point.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:33 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Robin,
>>> 
>>> I am not sure if this was in the last email.  So I am sending it again.  Like I said I don't think that the sentence in green needs to be included.  Also we should be clear that less means not elected and same as nota means elected.  Just so it's clear for everyone.
>>> See below
>>> Joan
>>> 
>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>> Thanks, Joan.  I agree with the point you make and that we should clarify it below.  But how is this (in purple) below for simpler language in doing so?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> __________________
>>> 
>>> Dear Appellants,
>>> 
>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>> 
>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>> 
>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>> 
>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  
>>> 
>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
>>> 
>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>> 
>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>>> 
>>> Signed,
>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>> 
>>> _________________
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Robin, All
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for writing the response.  Well done.  I agree that I will send the letter on behalf of the committee.  I wanted to add the actual sentence we agreed to in the call highlighted in green.  It doesn't change the context or tone, however it was what we agreed to do.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks again
>>>> Joan
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>> 
>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>> 
>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>> 
>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate with less votes than nota lose, and the same number as nota is enough to get in on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>> 
>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  
>>>> 
>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
>>>> 
>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>> 
>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>>>>   
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>> Great, folks.  I?d suggest that Joan send the letter on behalf of the Committee since she chaired the discussion on the appeal and Tapani is unavailable.
>>>> 
>>>> In addition to sending the response to the appellants, we should subsequently send a clarifying email to the members from the EC as well, so that there is no further confusion as to what the votes mean.  
>>>> 
>>>> It is important that we have the ballots agreed on before they are sent next year so as to prevent such confusion and misunderstandings.  Regardless of whether that was done in the past, our members have asked for oversight of the election process and our charter requires it of us.  We are trying to improve after all.  :-)
>>>> 
>>>> I made one small (purple) edit to the response below to clarify that the appeal has been satisfactorily resolved.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>> 
>>>> _________________
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>> 
>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>> 
>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>> 
>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>> 
>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot. 
>>>> 
>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
>>>> 
>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>> 
>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>>>> 
>>>> Signed,
>>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>> 
>>>> _________________
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>>> 
>>>>> It looks good to me.  Once the content is agreed on, who actually sends the letter on behalf of the EC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you for writing this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Joan
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>>> Colleagues,
>>>>> 
>>>>> As requested, I?ve drafted a proposed response from the EC to the appellants regarding their appeal and our compromise proposal for this year.  Please have a look below and feel free to suggest changes to the response.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>> 
>>>>> _________________
>>>>> 
>>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly withdrawn.  Thank you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Signed,
>>>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>>> 
>>>>> _________________
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks Robin.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Joan
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Poncelet,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Apologies, I hadn?t understood that you were suggesting I write the letter; but I would be happy to do that today and send it to this list for approval, so we can move quickly on putting this matter behind us.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hello Robin,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I just read your very articulated and outlined email in detail, and this was why I suggested you write on behalf an official communication to the appellants based on what you just said.  I belief we can all concur on this soonest, with a short and simple letter then communicate to the appellants.  So I suggest again please Robin, can you draft the letter to the appellants, I hope other colleagues agree with me on this.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Poncelet
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 25 August 2016 at 15:42, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes, under the charter, it is the committee?s job to respond to the appeal.  Since the EC did not reverse the decision to continue with the ongoing election, and instead decided to propose a compromise solution that would allow the election to go forward, but with NOTA counting, we are supposed to communicate that decision to the appellants in writing, and ask if they will accept our compromise, thus withdrawing their appeal.  Although I haven?t received confirmation from all 21 appellants yet, I do expect this proposed compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the appeal to be immediately withdrawn.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The charter specifically requires that we document these appeal discussions thoroughly.  ?All formal discussions related to the appeal will be done in a transparent manner and be both recorded and have transcripts made.  All documentation related to the appeal, including transcript of formal discussions, will be collected on a public website associated with the NCSG and will be retained for a minimum of 4 years.? (Section 2.4.2.1)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As I do expect the EC?s compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the appeal withdrawn, the EC should not have to go into the extended negotiations to work out a mutually agreeable solution, followed by the membership vote as outlined in the charter.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We should send our official compromise proposal to the appellants as soon as possible so the ongoing election is no longer in question of being suspended.  Obviously this official committee response to the appellants must be text that is approved of by the EC as a whole in advance of of it being sent on the EC?s behalf.  I would strongly object to the chair taking it upon himself to undertake this committee task without permitting oversight by the committee as is required in the charter and has been requested by the members.  This critical work is charged to the committee as a whole and needs to be done by the entire committee.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So a simple and short communication to the appellants officially communicating our proposed compromise should be all we need at this step of the process.  Would any member of the committee like to volunteer to draft the EC?s proposed response to the appellants?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to the appeal made.  I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we resolved it accordingly.  
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as its resolved, but we need to respond as EC.  I hope all concur with my comment on this.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Poncelet
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>>>>> Coordinator
>>>>>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240 <tel:%28220%29%204370240>
>>>>>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793 <tel:%28220%29%204390793>
>>>>>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508 <tel:%28220%29%209912508>
>>>>>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>>>>> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
>>>>>>>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
>>>>>>>> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
>>>>>>>> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
>>>>>>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>>>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
>>>>>>>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>>>> Coordinator
>>>>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240 <tel:%28220%29%204370240>
>>>>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793 <tel:%28220%29%204390793>
>>>>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508 <tel:%28220%29%209912508>
>>>>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>>>> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
>>>>>>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
>>>>>>> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
>>>>>>> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
>>>>>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
>>>>>>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160826/477f89ca/attachment-0001.html>


From joankerr  Fri Aug 26 23:30:08 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 16:30:08 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <CE61AFB6-4F04-4A5C-956E-709B199AB416@ipjustice.org>
References: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<17BEF5FA-BA82-4F3C-977F-88EE1443DA90@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40srDU5y29X8gOA+rBfDQhQjYM_t-6NPB5hip7+CA0YFmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<DD6350FB-495B-4317-940C-B7B93D4E3E3E@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshL7f=vKsoMo5OyWoGpVLCaNL6qqAFa2x3Q4oRKAwg4uuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<0B3E28AE-7A97-4149-93D7-4758AB8E252F@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+410gPWKnuaS_cJj2f-jtv_-zuURm9OP384rkkTk5uxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8CC90A3D-7F15-4839-9FC3-D218BE17730C@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshKrjm_gfdrp1vs2Lta0UJ-eaJy4RmHzKLmNnLjW-G6YGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8347C8F1-081D-43FD-9DC7-45887FB2AD98@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+67CTXubLduaD=S-U2nu1M7GKM3JEXLiSBm9pL1WHc7w@mail.gmail.com>
	<B553D02E-176B-437A-8894-A61358469C21@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+1Tu8jU4jL7CbjNLeTgKWscgY47seXKQ=mzunWYQuFXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<6A10D8BB-790B-4976-8B12-CCBA3D6C1DB2@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshLSi3_fDH_OEP3UegLLN5Uuq7hQQmGGUfD0kYDK5N3z8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CE61AFB6-4F04-4A5C-956E-709B199AB416@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CADwmsh+5+nbOP86W-vZb9ayjHKxFqk7WBuMDqdeX4JCKCMe5GQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robin,

Great idea.  Please send the final version and if the EC could sign off in
agreement I will send it to the membership list as recommended, if everyone
is in agreement.

Joan

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Thanks, Joan.  I?d suggest we send it to the entire membership list, as
> all NCSG members are on that list and the original appeal went to the
> members? list as well, it would be good practice to inform the entire
> membership of the outcome of the decision.
>
> Thanks again,
> Robin
>
>
>
> On Aug 26, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Robin,
>
> Yes that works.  Ok. question: where does the letter go?
>
> Thanks for the work Robin, much appreciated.
> Joan
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Joan.  Ok, how about the following (change in purple)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>> _________________
>>
>> Dear Appellants,
>>
>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
>> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
>> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
>> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>
>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
>> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that
>> meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in
>> lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>
>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
>> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
>> GNSO Council, those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of the
>> Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be elected to the GNSO Council in
>> this year?s election.  Any candidate who ties with NOTA in number of
>> votes is elected.
>>
>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it
>> is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election
>> as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on
>> the ballot.
>>
>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>
>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>
>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal
>> is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>>
>> Signed,
>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>
>> _________________
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Robin,
>>
>> Ok, if you feel that it's important that it is spelt out, I agree.  I get
>> what you say regarding the mathematicalIy logical, but I really do think we
>> should clearly say that if the votes are equal with the nota votes, it
>> means that the candidate wins.  It clearly says it and that's I thinks it's
>> important to say rather than leave it to someone interpretation.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Joan
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Joan,
>>>
>>> As members are looking for clarity in what we are doing, I think it is
>>> important that we include the phrase which explains the intent of the
>>> meaning.  So I would not agree to remove the phrase which clarifies the
>>> heart of what we are trying to achieve with this interpretation: clarifying
>>> that every candidate faces possible rejection is critical in this appeal.
>>>
>>> On the other point, the language proposed is mathematically logical in
>>> that the number of any candidate votes that are equal to NOTA is therefore
>>> NOT less less than NOTA, so there really isn?t any other possible
>>> interpretation of that phrase other than "a candidate who ties with NOTA is
>>> elected.?  So I believe we agree on the point, only the need to restate it
>>> given the new formulation which clarified our agreement on that point.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:33 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Robin,
>>>
>>> I am not sure if this was in the last email.  So I am sending it again.
>>> Like I said I don't think that the sentence in green needs to be included.
>>> Also we should be clear that less means not elected and same as nota means
>>> elected.  Just so it's clear for everyone.
>>> See below
>>> Joan
>>>
>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
>>> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election
>>> for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive less votes than
>>> ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be deemed elected to
>>> the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks, Joan.  I agree with the point you make and that we should
>>>> clarify it below.  But how is this (in purple) below for simpler language
>>>> in doing so?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>> __________________
>>>>
>>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>>
>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
>>>> members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016
>>>> regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue
>>>> with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>>
>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24
>>>> August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In
>>>> that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants
>>>> in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>>
>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>>>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
>>>> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
>>>> GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive less votes than ?None
>>>> of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be deemed elected to the
>>>> GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>>
>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
>>>> it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
>>>> election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and
>>>> confusion on the ballot.
>>>>
>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>>>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>>>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>>>
>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>>>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>>
>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
>>>> proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> Signed,
>>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>>
>>>> _________________
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Robin, All
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for writing the response.  Well done.  I agree that I will
>>>> send the letter on behalf of the committee.  I wanted to add the actual
>>>> sentence we agreed to in the call highlighted in green.  It doesn't change
>>>> the context or tone, however it was what we agreed to do.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again
>>>> Joan
>>>>
>>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
>>>> members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016
>>>> regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue
>>>> with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24
>>>> August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In
>>>> that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the
>>>> appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>>>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate *with less
>>>> votes than nota lose, **and the* *s**ame number as nota is enough to
>>>> get in* on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with
>>>> respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive
>>>> more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed
>>>> elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
>>>> it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
>>>> election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and
>>>> confusion on the ballot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>>>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>>>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>>>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
>>>> proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.
>>>> Thank you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Great, folks.  I?d suggest that Joan send the letter on behalf of the
>>>>> Committee since she chaired the discussion on the appeal and Tapani is
>>>>> unavailable.
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition to sending the response to the appellants, we should
>>>>> subsequently send a clarifying email to the members from the EC as well, so
>>>>> that there is no further confusion as to what the votes mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is important that we have the ballots agreed on before they are
>>>>> sent next year so as to prevent such confusion and misunderstandings.
>>>>> Regardless of whether that was done in the past, our members have asked for
>>>>> oversight of the election process and our charter requires it of us.  We
>>>>> are trying to improve after all.  :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I made one small (purple) edit to the response below to clarify that
>>>>> the appeal has been satisfactorily resolved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>>
>>>>> _________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>>>
>>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
>>>>> members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016
>>>>> regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue
>>>>> with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>>>
>>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24
>>>>> August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In
>>>>> that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants
>>>>> in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>>>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>>>>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
>>>>> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
>>>>> GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of
>>>>> the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council
>>>>> in this year?s election.
>>>>>
>>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
>>>>> it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
>>>>> election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and
>>>>> confusion on the ballot.
>>>>>
>>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>>>>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>>>>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>>>>
>>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>>>>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
>>>>> proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed,
>>>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>>>
>>>>> _________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG
>>>>> <joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks good to me.  Once the content is agreed on, who actually
>>>>> sends the letter on behalf of the EC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for writing this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Colleagues,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As requested, I?ve drafted a proposed response from the EC to the
>>>>>> appellants regarding their appeal and our compromise proposal for this
>>>>>> year.  Please have a look below and feel free to suggest changes to the
>>>>>> response.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
>>>>>> members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016
>>>>>> regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue
>>>>>> with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24
>>>>>> August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In
>>>>>> that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants
>>>>>> in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing
>>>>>> annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already
>>>>>> sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the
>>>>>> ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the
>>>>>> election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes
>>>>>> than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to
>>>>>> the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
>>>>>> it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
>>>>>> election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and
>>>>>> confusion on the ballot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>>>>>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>>>>>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>>>>>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
>>>>>> proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly
>>>>>> withdrawn.  Thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed,
>>>>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Robin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Poncelet,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apologies, I hadn?t understood that you were suggesting I write the
>>>>>>> letter; but I would be happy to do that today and send it to this list for
>>>>>>> approval, so we can move quickly on putting this matter behind us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hello Robin,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I just read your very articulated and outlined email in detail, and
>>>>>>> this was why I suggested you write on behalf an official communication to
>>>>>>> the appellants based on what you just said.  I belief we can all concur on
>>>>>>> this soonest, with a short and simple letter then communicate to the
>>>>>>> appellants.  So I suggest again please Robin, can you draft the letter to
>>>>>>> the appellants, I hope other colleagues agree with me on this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Poncelet
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 25 August 2016 at 15:42, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, under the charter, it is the committee?s job to respond to the
>>>>>>>> appeal.  Since the EC did not reverse the decision to continue with the
>>>>>>>> ongoing election, and instead decided to propose a compromise solution that
>>>>>>>> would allow the election to go forward, but with NOTA counting, we are
>>>>>>>> supposed to communicate that decision to the appellants in writing, and ask
>>>>>>>> if they will accept our compromise, thus withdrawing their appeal.
>>>>>>>> Although I haven?t received confirmation from all 21 appellants yet, I do
>>>>>>>> expect this proposed compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the
>>>>>>>> appeal to be immediately withdrawn.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The charter specifically requires that we document these appeal
>>>>>>>> discussions thoroughly.  ?All formal discussions related to the appeal will
>>>>>>>> be done in a transparent manner and be both recorded and have transcripts
>>>>>>>> made.  All documentation related to the appeal, including transcript of
>>>>>>>> formal discussions, will be collected on a public website associated with
>>>>>>>> the NCSG and will be retained for a minimum of 4 years.? (Section 2.4.2.1)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I do expect the EC?s compromise will be accepted by the
>>>>>>>> appellants and the appeal withdrawn, the EC should not have to go into the
>>>>>>>> extended negotiations to work out a mutually agreeable solution, followed
>>>>>>>> by the membership vote as outlined in the charter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We should send our official compromise proposal to the appellants
>>>>>>>> as soon as possible so the ongoing election is no longer in question of
>>>>>>>> being suspended.  Obviously this official committee response to the
>>>>>>>> appellants must be text that is approved of by the EC as a whole in advance
>>>>>>>> of of it being sent on the EC?s behalf.  I would strongly object to the
>>>>>>>> chair taking it upon himself to undertake this committee task without
>>>>>>>> permitting oversight by the committee as is required in the charter and has
>>>>>>>> been requested by the members.  This critical work is charged to the
>>>>>>>> committee as a whole and needs to be done by the entire committee.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So a simple and short communication to the appellants officially
>>>>>>>> communicating our proposed compromise should be all we need at this step of
>>>>>>>> the process.  Would any member of the committee like to volunteer to draft
>>>>>>>> the EC?s proposed response to the appellants?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand,
>>>>>>>> I just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response
>>>>>>>> to the appeal made.  I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we
>>>>>>>> resolved it accordingly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer
>>>>>>>> emails etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on
>>>>>>>> this respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again
>>>>>>>> as its resolved, but we need to respond as EC.  I hope all concur with my
>>>>>>>> comment on this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Poncelet
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>>>>> Coordinator
>>>>>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>>>>>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>>>>>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>>>>>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>>>>>>>> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
>>>>>>>> <http://www.waigf.org/>www,insistglobal.com
>>>>>>>> <http://www.itag.gm/>www.npoc.org
>>>>>>>> <http://www.npoc.org/>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>>>>>>> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.or
>>>>>>>> g
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>>>> Coordinator
>>>>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>>>>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>>>>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>>>>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>>>>>>> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
>>>>>>> <http://www.waigf.org/>www,insistglobal.com
>>>>>>> <http://www.itag.gm/>www.npoc.org
>>>>>>> <http://www.npoc.org/>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>>>>>> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160826/30c1b7fb/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Fri Aug 26 23:38:01 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 13:38:01 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <CADwmsh+5+nbOP86W-vZb9ayjHKxFqk7WBuMDqdeX4JCKCMe5GQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<17BEF5FA-BA82-4F3C-977F-88EE1443DA90@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40srDU5y29X8gOA+rBfDQhQjYM_t-6NPB5hip7+CA0YFmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<DD6350FB-495B-4317-940C-B7B93D4E3E3E@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshL7f=vKsoMo5OyWoGpVLCaNL6qqAFa2x3Q4oRKAwg4uuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<0B3E28AE-7A97-4149-93D7-4758AB8E252F@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+410gPWKnuaS_cJj2f-jtv_-zuURm9OP384rkkTk5uxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8CC90A3D-7F15-4839-9FC3-D218BE17730C@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshKrjm_gfdrp1vs2Lta0UJ-eaJy4RmHzKLmNnLjW-G6YGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8347C8F1-081D-43FD-9DC7-45887FB2AD98@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+67CTXubLduaD=S-U2nu1M7GKM3JEXLiSBm9pL1WHc7w@mail.gmail.com>
	<B553D02E-176B-437A-8894-A61358469C21@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+1Tu8jU4jL7CbjNLeTgKWscgY47seXKQ=mzunWYQuFXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<6A10D8BB-790B-4976-8B12-CCBA3D6C1DB2@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshLSi3_fDH_OEP3UegLLN5Uuq7hQQmGGUfD0kYDK5N3z8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CE61AFB6-4F04-4A5C-956E-709B199AB416@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+5+nbOP86W-vZb9ayjHKxFqk7WBuMDqdeX4JCKCMe5GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <91DC9807-E909-4EBF-9A22-B4F2036AD16F@ipjustice.org>

Final Text:
_________________

Dear Appellants,

This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.

The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.

Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.  Any candidate who ties with NOTA in number of votes is elected.

We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  

The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  

We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.

Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.

Signed,
Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group

_________________



> On Aug 26, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Robin,
> 
> Great idea.  Please send the final version and if the EC could sign off in agreement I will send it to the membership list as recommended, if everyone is in agreement.
> 
> Joan
> 
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
> Thanks, Joan.  I?d suggest we send it to the entire membership list, as all NCSG members are on that list and the original appeal went to the members? list as well, it would be good practice to inform the entire membership of the outcome of the decision.
> 
> Thanks again,
> Robin
> 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Robin,
>> 
>> Yes that works.  Ok. question: where does the letter go?
>> 
>> Thanks for the work Robin, much appreciated.
>> Joan
>> 
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>> Thanks, Joan.  Ok, how about the following (change in purple)?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> _________________
>> 
>> Dear Appellants,
>> 
>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>> 
>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>> 
>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.  Any candidate who ties with NOTA in number of votes is elected.
>> 
>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  
>> 
>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
>> 
>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>> 
>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>> 
>> Signed,
>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>> 
>> _________________
>> 
>>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Robin,
>>> 
>>> Ok, if you feel that it's important that it is spelt out, I agree.  I get what you say regarding the mathematicalIy logical, but I really do think we should clearly say that if the votes are equal with the nota votes, it means that the candidate wins.  It clearly says it and that's I thinks it's important to say rather than leave it to someone interpretation.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Joan
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>> Hi Joan,
>>> 
>>> As members are looking for clarity in what we are doing, I think it is important that we include the phrase which explains the intent of the meaning.  So I would not agree to remove the phrase which clarifies the heart of what we are trying to achieve with this interpretation: clarifying that every candidate faces possible rejection is critical in this appeal.  
>>> 
>>> On the other point, the language proposed is mathematically logical in that the number of any candidate votes that are equal to NOTA is therefore NOT less less than NOTA, so there really isn?t any other possible interpretation of that phrase other than "a candidate who ties with NOTA is elected.?  So I believe we agree on the point, only the need to restate it given the new formulation which clarified our agreement on that point.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:33 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>> 
>>>> I am not sure if this was in the last email.  So I am sending it again.  Like I said I don't think that the sentence in green needs to be included.  Also we should be clear that less means not elected and same as nota means elected.  Just so it's clear for everyone.
>>>> See below
>>>> Joan
>>>> 
>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>> Thanks, Joan.  I agree with the point you make and that we should clarify it below.  But how is this (in purple) below for simpler language in doing so?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>> 
>>>> __________________
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>> 
>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>> 
>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>> 
>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>> 
>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot. 
>>>> 
>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
>>>> 
>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>> 
>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>>>> 
>>>> Signed,
>>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>> 
>>>> _________________
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Robin, All
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you for writing the response.  Well done.  I agree that I will send the letter on behalf of the committee.  I wanted to add the actual sentence we agreed to in the call highlighted in green.  It doesn't change the context or tone, however it was what we agreed to do.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks again
>>>>> Joan
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>>> 
>>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate with less votes than nota lose, and the same number as nota is enough to get in on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>>>>>   
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>>> Great, folks.  I?d suggest that Joan send the letter on behalf of the Committee since she chaired the discussion on the appeal and Tapani is unavailable.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In addition to sending the response to the appellants, we should subsequently send a clarifying email to the members from the EC as well, so that there is no further confusion as to what the votes mean.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is important that we have the ballots agreed on before they are sent next year so as to prevent such confusion and misunderstandings.  Regardless of whether that was done in the past, our members have asked for oversight of the election process and our charter requires it of us.  We are trying to improve after all.  :-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> I made one small (purple) edit to the response below to clarify that the appeal has been satisfactorily resolved.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>> 
>>>>> _________________
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>>> 
>>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Signed,
>>>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>>> 
>>>>> _________________
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It looks good to me.  Once the content is agreed on, who actually sends the letter on behalf of the EC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you for writing this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Joan
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> Colleagues,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As requested, I?ve drafted a proposed response from the EC to the appellants regarding their appeal and our compromise proposal for this year.  Please have a look below and feel free to suggest changes to the response.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _________________
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly withdrawn.  Thank you.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Signed,
>>>>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _________________
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks Robin.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Joan
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Poncelet,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Apologies, I hadn?t understood that you were suggesting I write the letter; but I would be happy to do that today and send it to this list for approval, so we can move quickly on putting this matter behind us.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hello Robin,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I just read your very articulated and outlined email in detail, and this was why I suggested you write on behalf an official communication to the appellants based on what you just said.  I belief we can all concur on this soonest, with a short and simple letter then communicate to the appellants.  So I suggest again please Robin, can you draft the letter to the appellants, I hope other colleagues agree with me on this.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Poncelet
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 25 August 2016 at 15:42, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yes, under the charter, it is the committee?s job to respond to the appeal.  Since the EC did not reverse the decision to continue with the ongoing election, and instead decided to propose a compromise solution that would allow the election to go forward, but with NOTA counting, we are supposed to communicate that decision to the appellants in writing, and ask if they will accept our compromise, thus withdrawing their appeal.  Although I haven?t received confirmation from all 21 appellants yet, I do expect this proposed compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the appeal to be immediately withdrawn.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The charter specifically requires that we document these appeal discussions thoroughly.  ?All formal discussions related to the appeal will be done in a transparent manner and be both recorded and have transcripts made.  All documentation related to the appeal, including transcript of formal discussions, will be collected on a public website associated with the NCSG and will be retained for a minimum of 4 years.? (Section 2.4.2.1)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> As I do expect the EC?s compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the appeal withdrawn, the EC should not have to go into the extended negotiations to work out a mutually agreeable solution, followed by the membership vote as outlined in the charter.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We should send our official compromise proposal to the appellants as soon as possible so the ongoing election is no longer in question of being suspended.  Obviously this official committee response to the appellants must be text that is approved of by the EC as a whole in advance of of it being sent on the EC?s behalf.  I would strongly object to the chair taking it upon himself to undertake this committee task without permitting oversight by the committee as is required in the charter and has been requested by the members.  This critical work is charged to the committee as a whole and needs to be done by the entire committee.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So a simple and short communication to the appellants officially communicating our proposed compromise should be all we need at this step of the process.  Would any member of the committee like to volunteer to draft the EC?s proposed response to the appellants?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at hand, I just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a response to the appeal made.  I suppose that appeal stands null and void now as we resolved it accordingly.  
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer emails etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on this respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again as its resolved, but we need to respond as EC.  I hope all concur with my comment on this.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Poncelet
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>>>>>> Coordinator
>>>>>>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>>>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>>>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>>>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>>>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240 <tel:%28220%29%204370240>
>>>>>>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793 <tel:%28220%29%204390793>
>>>>>>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508 <tel:%28220%29%209912508>
>>>>>>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>>>>>> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
>>>>>>>>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
>>>>>>>>> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
>>>>>>>>> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
>>>>>>>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
>>>>>>>>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>>>>> Coordinator
>>>>>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240 <tel:%28220%29%204370240>
>>>>>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793 <tel:%28220%29%204390793>
>>>>>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508 <tel:%28220%29%209912508>
>>>>>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>>>>> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
>>>>>>>> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
>>>>>>>> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
>>>>>>>> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
>>>>>>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>>>>> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
>>>>>>>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160826/063e6ba1/attachment-0001.html>


From joankerr  Fri Aug 26 23:45:07 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 16:45:07 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance
In-Reply-To: <91DC9807-E909-4EBF-9A22-B4F2036AD16F@ipjustice.org>
References: <CAEux40tVSR84zV7RgwP=6naC0NUKdcJH7d3-vmJ8FuvN7rTKxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<17BEF5FA-BA82-4F3C-977F-88EE1443DA90@ipjustice.org>
	<CAEux40srDU5y29X8gOA+rBfDQhQjYM_t-6NPB5hip7+CA0YFmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<DD6350FB-495B-4317-940C-B7B93D4E3E3E@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshL7f=vKsoMo5OyWoGpVLCaNL6qqAFa2x3Q4oRKAwg4uuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<0B3E28AE-7A97-4149-93D7-4758AB8E252F@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+410gPWKnuaS_cJj2f-jtv_-zuURm9OP384rkkTk5uxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8CC90A3D-7F15-4839-9FC3-D218BE17730C@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshKrjm_gfdrp1vs2Lta0UJ-eaJy4RmHzKLmNnLjW-G6YGg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8347C8F1-081D-43FD-9DC7-45887FB2AD98@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+67CTXubLduaD=S-U2nu1M7GKM3JEXLiSBm9pL1WHc7w@mail.gmail.com>
	<B553D02E-176B-437A-8894-A61358469C21@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+1Tu8jU4jL7CbjNLeTgKWscgY47seXKQ=mzunWYQuFXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<6A10D8BB-790B-4976-8B12-CCBA3D6C1DB2@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshLSi3_fDH_OEP3UegLLN5Uuq7hQQmGGUfD0kYDK5N3z8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CE61AFB6-4F04-4A5C-956E-709B199AB416@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmsh+5+nbOP86W-vZb9ayjHKxFqk7WBuMDqdeX4JCKCMe5GQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<91DC9807-E909-4EBF-9A22-B4F2036AD16F@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CADwmsh+YiwyhJJ-rbuBw2rHUJsPi9a0fvXHg_DQAgW-C1nR4eQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robin,

Thanks again for doing this.

Monika and Poncelet, please review the final text below.  The context and
intent has not changed.

Please review and respond as soon as you can, so I can send it to the
membership list in response to the appeal.Thanks,

Joan


This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of
the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.

The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to
discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that
meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in
lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.

Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
GNSO Council, those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of the
Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be elected to the GNSO Council in
this year?s election.  Any candidate who ties with NOTA in number of votes
is elected.

We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is
a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as
planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on
the ballot.

The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed
by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left
unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.

We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.

Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is
acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.

Signed,
Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group


On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Final Text:
> _________________
>
> Dear Appellants,
>
> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>
> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that
> meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in
> lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>
> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
> GNSO Council, those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of the
> Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be elected to the GNSO Council in
> this year?s election.  Any candidate who ties with NOTA in number of votes
> is elected.
>
> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it
> is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election
> as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on
> the ballot.
>
> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>
> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>
> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal
> is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>
> Signed,
> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>
> _________________
>
>
>
> On Aug 26, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Robin,
>
> Great idea.  Please send the final version and if the EC could sign off in
> agreement I will send it to the membership list as recommended, if everyone
> is in agreement.
>
> Joan
>
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 4:05 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Joan.  I?d suggest we send it to the entire membership list, as
>> all NCSG members are on that list and the original appeal went to the
>> members? list as well, it would be good practice to inform the entire
>> membership of the outcome of the decision.
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Robin,
>>
>> Yes that works.  Ok. question: where does the letter go?
>>
>> Thanks for the work Robin, much appreciated.
>> Joan
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Joan.  Ok, how about the following (change in purple)?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>> _________________
>>>
>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>
>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
>>> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
>>> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
>>> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>
>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
>>> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that
>>> meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in
>>> lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>
>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
>>> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
>>> GNSO Council, those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of the
>>> Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be elected to the GNSO Council in
>>> this year?s election.  Any candidate who ties with NOTA in number of
>>> votes is elected.
>>>
>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it
>>> is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election
>>> as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on
>>> the ballot.
>>>
>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>>
>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>
>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal
>>> is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.
>>>
>>> Signed,
>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>
>>> _________________
>>>
>>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Robin,
>>>
>>> Ok, if you feel that it's important that it is spelt out, I agree.  I
>>> get what you say regarding the mathematicalIy logical, but I really do
>>> think we should clearly say that if the votes are equal with the nota
>>> votes, it means that the candidate wins.  It clearly says it and that's I
>>> thinks it's important to say rather than leave it to someone interpretation.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Joan
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 2:23 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Joan,
>>>>
>>>> As members are looking for clarity in what we are doing, I think it is
>>>> important that we include the phrase which explains the intent of the
>>>> meaning.  So I would not agree to remove the phrase which clarifies the
>>>> heart of what we are trying to achieve with this interpretation: clarifying
>>>> that every candidate faces possible rejection is critical in this appeal.
>>>>
>>>> On the other point, the language proposed is mathematically logical in
>>>> that the number of any candidate votes that are equal to NOTA is therefore
>>>> NOT less less than NOTA, so there really isn?t any other possible
>>>> interpretation of that phrase other than "a candidate who ties with NOTA is
>>>> elected.?  So I believe we agree on the point, only the need to restate it
>>>> given the new formulation which clarified our agreement on that point.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 10:33 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>>
>>>> I am not sure if this was in the last email.  So I am sending it
>>>> again.  Like I said I don't think that the sentence in green needs to be
>>>> included.  Also we should be clear that less means not elected and same as
>>>> nota means elected.  Just so it's clear for everyone.
>>>> See below
>>>> Joan
>>>>
>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>>>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
>>>> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the
>>>> election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive less votes
>>>> than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be deemed
>>>> elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Joan.  I agree with the point you make and that we should
>>>>> clarify it below.  But how is this (in purple) below for simpler language
>>>>> in doing so?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>>
>>>>> __________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>>>
>>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
>>>>> members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016
>>>>> regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue
>>>>> with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>>>
>>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24
>>>>> August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In
>>>>> that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants
>>>>> in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>>>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>>>>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot
>>>>> faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
>>>>> GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive less votes than ?None
>>>>> of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be deemed elected to the
>>>>> GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>>>
>>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
>>>>> it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
>>>>> election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and
>>>>> confusion on the ballot.
>>>>>
>>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>>>>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>>>>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>>>>
>>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>>>>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
>>>>> proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed,
>>>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>>>
>>>>> _________________
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 26, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Robin, All
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for writing the response.  Well done.  I agree that I will
>>>>> send the letter on behalf of the committee.  I wanted to add the actual
>>>>> sentence we agreed to in the call highlighted in green.  It doesn't change
>>>>> the context or tone, however it was what we agreed to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks again
>>>>> Joan
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
>>>>> members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016
>>>>> regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue
>>>>> with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24
>>>>> August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In
>>>>> that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the
>>>>> appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>>>> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to
>>>>> members, but with the understanding that every candidate *with less
>>>>> votes than nota lose, **and the* *s**ame number as nota is enough to
>>>>> get in* on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with
>>>>> respect to the election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive
>>>>> more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed
>>>>> elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
>>>>> it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
>>>>> election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and
>>>>> confusion on the ballot.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>>>>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>>>>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>>>>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
>>>>> proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Great, folks.  I?d suggest that Joan send the letter on behalf of the
>>>>>> Committee since she chaired the discussion on the appeal and Tapani is
>>>>>> unavailable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition to sending the response to the appellants, we should
>>>>>> subsequently send a clarifying email to the members from the EC as well, so
>>>>>> that there is no further confusion as to what the votes mean.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is important that we have the ballots agreed on before they are
>>>>>> sent next year so as to prevent such confusion and misunderstandings.
>>>>>> Regardless of whether that was done in the past, our members have asked for
>>>>>> oversight of the election process and our charter requires it of us.  We
>>>>>> are trying to improve after all.  :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I made one small (purple) edit to the response below to clarify that
>>>>>> the appeal has been satisfactorily resolved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
>>>>>> members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016
>>>>>> regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue
>>>>>> with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24
>>>>>> August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In
>>>>>> that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants
>>>>>> in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing
>>>>>> annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already
>>>>>> sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the
>>>>>> ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the
>>>>>> election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes
>>>>>> than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to
>>>>>> the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
>>>>>> it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
>>>>>> election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and
>>>>>> confusion on the ballot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>>>>>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>>>>>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining
>>>>>> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
>>>>>> proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily
>>>>>> resolved.  Thank you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed,
>>>>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:27 PM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG
>>>>>> <joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It looks good to me.  Once the content is agreed on, who actually
>>>>>> sends the letter on behalf of the EC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for writing this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Colleagues,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As requested, I?ve drafted a proposed response from the EC to the
>>>>>>> appellants regarding their appeal and our compromise proposal for this
>>>>>>> year.  Please have a look below and feel free to suggest changes to the
>>>>>>> response.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
>>>>>>> members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016
>>>>>>> regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue
>>>>>>> with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24
>>>>>>> August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In
>>>>>>> that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants
>>>>>>> in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing
>>>>>>> annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already
>>>>>>> sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the
>>>>>>> ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the
>>>>>>> election for GNSO Council, only those candidates who receive more votes
>>>>>>> than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to
>>>>>>> the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we
>>>>>>> believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the
>>>>>>> existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about
>>>>>>> representation and confusion on the ballot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are
>>>>>>> appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are
>>>>>>> left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any
>>>>>>> remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
>>>>>>> proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly
>>>>>>> withdrawn.  Thank you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed,
>>>>>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Robin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Poncelet,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Apologies, I hadn?t understood that you were suggesting I write the
>>>>>>>> letter; but I would be happy to do that today and send it to this list for
>>>>>>>> approval, so we can move quickly on putting this matter behind us.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 8:48 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Robin,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I just read your very articulated and outlined email in detail, and
>>>>>>>> this was why I suggested you write on behalf an official communication to
>>>>>>>> the appellants based on what you just said.  I belief we can all concur on
>>>>>>>> this soonest, with a short and simple letter then communicate to the
>>>>>>>> appellants.  So I suggest again please Robin, can you draft the letter to
>>>>>>>> the appellants, I hope other colleagues agree with me on this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kind Regards
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Poncelet
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 25 August 2016 at 15:42, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, under the charter, it is the committee?s job to respond to
>>>>>>>>> the appeal.  Since the EC did not reverse the decision to continue with the
>>>>>>>>> ongoing election, and instead decided to propose a compromise solution that
>>>>>>>>> would allow the election to go forward, but with NOTA counting, we are
>>>>>>>>> supposed to communicate that decision to the appellants in writing, and ask
>>>>>>>>> if they will accept our compromise, thus withdrawing their appeal.
>>>>>>>>> Although I haven?t received confirmation from all 21 appellants yet, I do
>>>>>>>>> expect this proposed compromise will be accepted by the appellants and the
>>>>>>>>> appeal to be immediately withdrawn.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The charter specifically requires that we document these appeal
>>>>>>>>> discussions thoroughly.  ?All formal discussions related to the appeal will
>>>>>>>>> be done in a transparent manner and be both recorded and have transcripts
>>>>>>>>> made.  All documentation related to the appeal, including transcript of
>>>>>>>>> formal discussions, will be collected on a public website associated with
>>>>>>>>> the NCSG and will be retained for a minimum of 4 years.? (Section 2.4.2.1)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As I do expect the EC?s compromise will be accepted by the
>>>>>>>>> appellants and the appeal withdrawn, the EC should not have to go into the
>>>>>>>>> extended negotiations to work out a mutually agreeable solution, followed
>>>>>>>>> by the membership vote as outlined in the charter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We should send our official compromise proposal to the appellants
>>>>>>>>> as soon as possible so the ongoing election is no longer in question of
>>>>>>>>> being suspended.  Obviously this official committee response to the
>>>>>>>>> appellants must be text that is approved of by the EC as a whole in advance
>>>>>>>>> of of it being sent on the EC?s behalf.  I would strongly object to the
>>>>>>>>> chair taking it upon himself to undertake this committee task without
>>>>>>>>> permitting oversight by the committee as is required in the charter and has
>>>>>>>>> been requested by the members.  This critical work is charged to the
>>>>>>>>> committee as a whole and needs to be done by the entire committee.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So a simple and short communication to the appellants officially
>>>>>>>>> communicating our proposed compromise should be all we need at this step of
>>>>>>>>> the process.  Would any member of the committee like to volunteer to draft
>>>>>>>>> the EC?s proposed response to the appellants?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Aug 25, 2016, at 4:50 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello Colleagues,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Based on our call yesterday in which we resolved the issue at
>>>>>>>>> hand, I just read Avri's last email now and she said she is awaiting a
>>>>>>>>> response to the appeal made.  I suppose that appeal stands null and void
>>>>>>>>> now as we resolved it accordingly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So please as Tapani said he is traveling and might not answer
>>>>>>>>> emails etc in a timely manner, can you Robin with your good background on
>>>>>>>>> this respond to Avri regarding the appeal as I do not think it stands again
>>>>>>>>> as its resolved, but we need to respond as EC.  I hope all concur with my
>>>>>>>>> comment on this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Poncelet
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>>>>>> Coordinator
>>>>>>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>>>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>>>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>>>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>>>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>>>>>>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>>>>>>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>>>>>>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>>>>>>>>> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.waigf.org/>www,insistglobal.com
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.itag.gm/>www.npoc.org
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.npoc.org/>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>>>>>>>> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*
>>>>>>>>> www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>>>>>>>> Coordinator
>>>>>>>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>>>>>>>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>>>>>>>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>>>>>>>> The Gambia, West Africa
>>>>>>>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>>>>>>>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>>>>>>>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>>>>>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>>>>>>>> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
>>>>>>>> <http://www.waigf.org/>www,insistglobal.com
>>>>>>>> <http://www.itag.gm/>www.npoc.org
>>>>>>>> <http://www.npoc.org/>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>>>>>>>> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.or
>>>>>>>> g
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160826/d5acc6a0/attachment-0001.html>


From joankerr  Sat Aug 27 15:03:01 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 08:03:01 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
Message-ID: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear NCSG EC Members,

I have reviewed the letter drafted by Robin with suggestions by all of of
us. I have made a few edits, please review.  I think we need to just deal
with the decision as discussed on the EC call which was to clarify for the
community whether a nota vote counts and the letter reflects that.  It is
more concise with precise wording without changing the context which we
have already agreed.

Please review.
Joan

Dear Appellants,

This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of
the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.

The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to
discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response. In that
meeting, we decided a solution that addressed the nota votes to clarify for
the community that candidates *with less votes than nota lose, **and the*
*s**ame number as nota is enough to get in. **This solution **is to enable
the current election to continue and address the concerns in the Letter of
Appeal.*

Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
election, using the existing ballots already sent to members, only those
candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the
ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.

The NCSG EC is proposing this solution which will allow us to go forward
with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about
representation and confusion on the ballot.

In the unlikely event that the GNSO seats are left unfilled, the NCSG EC
after an election, the EC will follow the procedures outlined in the
charter to fill that seat.

The decision by the NCSG has clarified how the nota votes are counted and
will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in
next year's annual election.

The EC feels that we have addressed the concerns of the Letter of Appeal
and ask for a response at your earliest convenience.

Thank you.

Signed,

Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160827/f9dfafbc/attachment.html>


From robin  Sat Aug 27 15:54:22 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 05:54:22 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9327954E-A9B3-4D77-91E5-B051BA75F62C@ipjustice.org>

Joan,

I don?t understand what you are doing now.  We had text yesterday that we had agreement on and you said would be sent when Monika and Poncelet weigh in.  Now you are proposing new text with new edits.  Please keep in mind that we have 21 members on the other side of this appeal who must agree to our compromise and I am concerned that further delay or attempts to chip away at the compromise are going to jeopardize the compromise entirely.  

Please go back to the language you agreed to yesterday and let?s put this issue behind us.  

Thanks,
Robin


> On Aug 27, 2016, at 5:03 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear NCSG EC Members,
> 
> I have reviewed the letter drafted by Robin with suggestions by all of of us. I have made a few edits, please review.  I think we need to just deal with the decision as discussed on the EC call which was to clarify for the community whether a nota vote counts and the letter reflects that.  It is more concise with precise wording without changing the context which we have already agreed.
> 
> Please review.
> Joan
> 
> 
> Dear Appellants,
> 
> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
> 
> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response. In that meeting, we decided a solution that addressed the nota votes to clarify for the community that candidates with less votes than nota lose, and the same number as nota is enough to get in. This solution is to enable the current election to continue and address the concerns in the Letter of Appeal.
> 
> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election, using the existing ballots already sent to members, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
> 
> The NCSG EC is proposing this solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.
> 
> In the unlikely event that the GNSO seats are left unfilled, the NCSG EC after an election, the EC will follow the procedures outlined in the charter to fill that seat.
> 
> The decision by the NCSG has clarified how the nota votes are counted and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
> 
> The EC feels that we have addressed the concerns of the Letter of Appeal and ask for a response at your earliest convenience.
> 
> Thank you.
> Signed,
> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160827/3536f6b3/attachment.html>


From joankerr  Sat Aug 27 16:56:34 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 09:56:34 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <9327954E-A9B3-4D77-91E5-B051BA75F62C@ipjustice.org>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9327954E-A9B3-4D77-91E5-B051BA75F62C@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CADwmshKZwyzcw3-uWrbCifrVT8=ju74RQv7Mq6GZqqP_ctwnew@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robin, All

I want this dealt with correctly.  I didn't changed the context of the
letter, only addressed the issue specifically, which is how will the nota
votes be counted. I reviewed what the discussion entail at the EC meeting
and that's why I suggested the revision. It's simply asking for
clarification on whether the nota votes count!

I can only do what is correct, and this is to 1) answer the question, and
2) give a solution of a possible outcome way forward which I think the
revised version addresses.  Very specific with no interpretation.  The
appeal ask for clarification which is given.   The Group asked for
clarification and the revised text gives them that.

BTW, your letter is actually intact in terms of content, all I have done is
simplify the wording.  I hope this clarifies your question.

I don't believe my suggestions will further delay the letter as it stands.

Joan




On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Joan,
>
> I don?t understand what you are doing now.  We had text yesterday that we
> had agreement on and you said would be sent when Monika and Poncelet weigh
> in.  Now you are proposing new text with new edits.  Please keep in mind
> that we have 21 members on the other side of this appeal who must agree to
> our compromise and I am concerned that further delay or attempts to chip
> away at the compromise are going to jeopardize the compromise entirely.
>
> Please go back to the language you agreed to yesterday and let?s put this
> issue behind us.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> On Aug 27, 2016, at 5:03 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>
> Dear NCSG EC Members,
>
> I have reviewed the letter drafted by Robin with suggestions by all of of
> us. I have made a few edits, please review.  I think we need to just deal
> with the decision as discussed on the EC call which was to clarify for the
> community whether a nota vote counts and the letter reflects that.  It is
> more concise with precise wording without changing the context which we
> have already agreed.
>
> Please review.
> Joan
>
>
> Dear Appellants,
>
> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>
> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response. In that
> meeting, we decided a solution that addressed the nota votes to clarify for
> the community that candidates *with less votes than nota lose, **and the*
> *s**ame number as nota is enough to get in. **This solution **is to
> enable the current election to continue and address the concerns in the
> Letter of Appeal.*
>
> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
> election, using the existing ballots already sent to members, only those
> candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the
> ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>
> The NCSG EC is proposing this solution which will allow us to go forward
> with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about
> representation and confusion on the ballot.
>
> In the unlikely event that the GNSO seats are left unfilled, the NCSG EC
> after an election, the EC will follow the procedures outlined in the
> charter to fill that seat.
>
> The decision by the NCSG has clarified how the nota votes are counted and
> will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in
> next year's annual election.
>
> The EC feels that we have addressed the concerns of the Letter of Appeal
> and ask for a response at your earliest convenience.
>
> Thank you.
>
> Signed,
>
> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160827/9101b675/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Sat Aug 27 17:11:11 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 07:11:11 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <CADwmshKZwyzcw3-uWrbCifrVT8=ju74RQv7Mq6GZqqP_ctwnew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9327954E-A9B3-4D77-91E5-B051BA75F62C@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshKZwyzcw3-uWrbCifrVT8=ju74RQv7Mq6GZqqP_ctwnew@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AD0C7F7E-728D-4BCE-AD45-19C3F55312AC@ipjustice.org>

Hi Joan,

There won?t be agreement from within this committee, let alone from the 20+ member appellants that we need to compromise with over the new text you are proposing this morning.   It is not helpful to continue to shift the ground we are trying to navigate on.  Please send the text that was agreed to yesterday and stop attempting to chip away at the compromise so our members can be assured that this is no longer a problem.

Robin


> On Aug 27, 2016, at 6:56 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Robin, All
> 
> I want this dealt with correctly.  I didn't changed the context of the letter, only addressed the issue specifically, which is how will the nota votes be counted. I reviewed what the discussion entail at the EC meeting and that's why I suggested the revision. It's simply asking for clarification on whether the nota votes count!
> 
> I can only do what is correct, and this is to 1) answer the question, and 2) give a solution of a possible outcome way forward which I think the revised version addresses.  Very specific with no interpretation.  The appeal ask for clarification which is given.   The Group asked for clarification and the revised text gives them that.
> 
> BTW, your letter is actually intact in terms of content, all I have done is simplify the wording.  I hope this clarifies your question.
> 
> I don't believe my suggestions will further delay the letter as it stands.
> 
> Joan
>   
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
> Joan,
> 
> I don?t understand what you are doing now.  We had text yesterday that we had agreement on and you said would be sent when Monika and Poncelet weigh in.  Now you are proposing new text with new edits.  Please keep in mind that we have 21 members on the other side of this appeal who must agree to our compromise and I am concerned that further delay or attempts to chip away at the compromise are going to jeopardize the compromise entirely.  
> 
> Please go back to the language you agreed to yesterday and let?s put this issue behind us.  
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
>> On Aug 27, 2016, at 5:03 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear NCSG EC Members,
>> 
>> I have reviewed the letter drafted by Robin with suggestions by all of of us. I have made a few edits, please review.  I think we need to just deal with the decision as discussed on the EC call which was to clarify for the community whether a nota vote counts and the letter reflects that.  It is more concise with precise wording without changing the context which we have already agreed.
>> 
>> Please review.
>> Joan
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Appellants,
>> 
>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>> 
>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response. In that meeting, we decided a solution that addressed the nota votes to clarify for the community that candidates with less votes than nota lose, and the same number as nota is enough to get in. This solution is to enable the current election to continue and address the concerns in the Letter of Appeal.
>> 
>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election, using the existing ballots already sent to members, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>> 
>> The NCSG EC is proposing this solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.
>> 
>> In the unlikely event that the GNSO seats are left unfilled, the NCSG EC after an election, the EC will follow the procedures outlined in the charter to fill that seat.
>> 
>> The decision by the NCSG has clarified how the nota votes are counted and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>> 
>> The EC feels that we have addressed the concerns of the Letter of Appeal and ask for a response at your earliest convenience.
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> Signed,
>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160827/ae3f2474/attachment.html>


From joankerr  Sat Aug 27 17:29:58 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 10:29:58 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <AD0C7F7E-728D-4BCE-AD45-19C3F55312AC@ipjustice.org>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9327954E-A9B3-4D77-91E5-B051BA75F62C@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshKZwyzcw3-uWrbCifrVT8=ju74RQv7Mq6GZqqP_ctwnew@mail.gmail.com>
	<AD0C7F7E-728D-4BCE-AD45-19C3F55312AC@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CADwmshLqNkbv1ZiTWH_W0P5bEW-HgGNs=7EJtb67PZqX9MHc7g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robin, All

We hadn't agreed on the final text, that was what my email was about.  We
agreed on the earlier text, pending discussions.

The suggested revision is about clarification.  It distinctly clarifies and
answers the question of nota votes.  In no way does it not answer that
question.  All I have done is simply added the agreement we had on the
call.  There is no disagreement here.  The EC agree to clarify the question
for the Appellants.  I can't speak for how the members of NCSG EC will
agree internally, only to say as Chair for the call we agreed only to
clarify the voting procedure that nota will count.  I am actually acting on
the direction of the EC Committee and ensuring what we agreed to is done.

Joan

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Hi Joan,
>
> There won?t be agreement from within this committee, let alone from the
> 20+ member appellants that we need to compromise with over the new text you
> are proposing this morning.   It is not helpful to continue to shift the
> ground we are trying to navigate on.  Please send the text that was agreed
> to yesterday and stop attempting to chip away at the compromise so our
> members can be assured that this is no longer a problem.
>
> Robin
>
>
> On Aug 27, 2016, at 6:56 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Robin, All
>
> I want this dealt with correctly.  I didn't changed the context of the
> letter, only addressed the issue specifically, which is how will the nota
> votes be counted. I reviewed what the discussion entail at the EC meeting
> and that's why I suggested the revision. It's simply asking for
> clarification on whether the nota votes count!
>
> I can only do what is correct, and this is to 1) answer the question, and
> 2) give a solution of a possible outcome way forward which I think the
> revised version addresses.  Very specific with no interpretation.  The
> appeal ask for clarification which is given.   The Group asked for
> clarification and the revised text gives them that.
>
> BTW, your letter is actually intact in terms of content, all I have done
> is simplify the wording.  I hope this clarifies your question.
>
> I don't believe my suggestions will further delay the letter as it stands.
>
> Joan
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Joan,
>>
>> I don?t understand what you are doing now.  We had text yesterday that we
>> had agreement on and you said would be sent when Monika and Poncelet weigh
>> in.  Now you are proposing new text with new edits.  Please keep in mind
>> that we have 21 members on the other side of this appeal who must agree to
>> our compromise and I am concerned that further delay or attempts to chip
>> away at the compromise are going to jeopardize the compromise entirely.
>>
>> Please go back to the language you agreed to yesterday and let?s put this
>> issue behind us.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2016, at 5:03 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dear NCSG EC Members,
>>
>> I have reviewed the letter drafted by Robin with suggestions by all of of
>> us. I have made a few edits, please review.  I think we need to just deal
>> with the decision as discussed on the EC call which was to clarify for the
>> community whether a nota vote counts and the letter reflects that.  It is
>> more concise with precise wording without changing the context which we
>> have already agreed.
>>
>> Please review.
>> Joan
>>
>>
>> Dear Appellants,
>>
>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
>> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
>> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
>> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>
>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
>> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response. In that
>> meeting, we decided a solution that addressed the nota votes to clarify for
>> the community that candidates *with less votes than nota lose, **and the*
>> *s**ame number as nota is enough to get in. **This solution **is to
>> enable the current election to continue and address the concerns in the
>> Letter of Appeal.*
>>
>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>> election, using the existing ballots already sent to members, only those
>> candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the
>> ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>
>> The NCSG EC is proposing this solution which will allow us to go forward
>> with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about
>> representation and confusion on the ballot.
>>
>> In the unlikely event that the GNSO seats are left unfilled, the NCSG EC
>> after an election, the EC will follow the procedures outlined in the
>> charter to fill that seat.
>>
>> The decision by the NCSG has clarified how the nota votes are counted and
>> will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in
>> next year's annual election.
>>
>> The EC feels that we have addressed the concerns of the Letter of Appeal
>> and ask for a response at your earliest convenience.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Signed,
>>
>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160827/80e80e3d/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Sat Aug 27 22:37:36 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 12:37:36 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <CADwmshLqNkbv1ZiTWH_W0P5bEW-HgGNs=7EJtb67PZqX9MHc7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9327954E-A9B3-4D77-91E5-B051BA75F62C@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshKZwyzcw3-uWrbCifrVT8=ju74RQv7Mq6GZqqP_ctwnew@mail.gmail.com>
	<AD0C7F7E-728D-4BCE-AD45-19C3F55312AC@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshLqNkbv1ZiTWH_W0P5bEW-HgGNs=7EJtb67PZqX9MHc7g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5692E95A-A515-456B-A805-965AB9073F50@ipjustice.org>

Joan,

I don?t agree to your new interpretation of the discussion, nor your new proposed text, and neither do the appellants.  There is no consensus in the EC for your new proposal, and without consensus, you may not claim it as an EC decision.

Not only is the appeal compromise about to shatter because of your delay and new proposal, we now have additional NCSG members who are asking to join in the appeal, including EPIC.  Until this appeal is resolved, this election is in serious jeopardy and we will be forced to spend time fighting over things that should be clearly settled.  

In addition to the new text you added, you also deleted the sentence about the matter being satisfactorily resolved (although didn?t mention this edit).  This omission was noticed by the appellants and is unacceptable to them.

You agreed to the language yesterday and today came back with new text and a new round of proposals.  That is a problematic action from someone who is asking to be our Vice Chair, which requires us to be able to rely on them when they say they ?agree" and will send something in the name of the committee.

At this point, Joan, you are risking this entire compromise and inviting even more trouble on the NCSG by changing your mind and going back on your word.

Robin

> On Aug 27, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG> wrote:
> 
> Hi Robin, All
> 
> We hadn't agreed on the final text, that was what my email was about.  We agreed on the earlier text, pending discussions. 
> 
> The suggested revision is about clarification.  It distinctly clarifies and answers the question of nota votes.  In no way does it not answer that question.  All I have done is simply added the agreement we had on the call.  There is no disagreement here.  The EC agree to clarify the question for the Appellants.  I can't speak for how the members of NCSG EC will agree internally, only to say as Chair for the call we agreed only to clarify the voting procedure that nota will count.  I am actually acting on the direction of the EC Committee and ensuring what we agreed to is done.
> 
> Joan 
> 
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
> Hi Joan,
> 
> There won?t be agreement from within this committee, let alone from the 20+ member appellants that we need to compromise with over the new text you are proposing this morning.   It is not helpful to continue to shift the ground we are trying to navigate on.  Please send the text that was agreed to yesterday and stop attempting to chip away at the compromise so our members can be assured that this is no longer a problem.
> 
> Robin
> 
> 
>> On Aug 27, 2016, at 6:56 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Robin, All
>> 
>> I want this dealt with correctly.  I didn't changed the context of the letter, only addressed the issue specifically, which is how will the nota votes be counted. I reviewed what the discussion entail at the EC meeting and that's why I suggested the revision. It's simply asking for clarification on whether the nota votes count!
>> 
>> I can only do what is correct, and this is to 1) answer the question, and 2) give a solution of a possible outcome way forward which I think the revised version addresses.  Very specific with no interpretation.  The appeal ask for clarification which is given.   The Group asked for clarification and the revised text gives them that.
>> 
>> BTW, your letter is actually intact in terms of content, all I have done is simplify the wording.  I hope this clarifies your question.
>> 
>> I don't believe my suggestions will further delay the letter as it stands.
>> 
>> Joan
>>   
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>> Joan,
>> 
>> I don?t understand what you are doing now.  We had text yesterday that we had agreement on and you said would be sent when Monika and Poncelet weigh in.  Now you are proposing new text with new edits.  Please keep in mind that we have 21 members on the other side of this appeal who must agree to our compromise and I am concerned that further delay or attempts to chip away at the compromise are going to jeopardize the compromise entirely.  
>> 
>> Please go back to the language you agreed to yesterday and let?s put this issue behind us.  
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 27, 2016, at 5:03 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear NCSG EC Members,
>>> 
>>> I have reviewed the letter drafted by Robin with suggestions by all of of us. I have made a few edits, please review.  I think we need to just deal with the decision as discussed on the EC call which was to clarify for the community whether a nota vote counts and the letter reflects that.  It is more concise with precise wording without changing the context which we have already agreed.
>>> 
>>> Please review.
>>> Joan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear Appellants,
>>> 
>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>> 
>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response. In that meeting, we decided a solution that addressed the nota votes to clarify for the community that candidates with less votes than nota lose, and the same number as nota is enough to get in. This solution is to enable the current election to continue and address the concerns in the Letter of Appeal.
>>> 
>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election, using the existing ballots already sent to members, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>> 
>>> The NCSG EC is proposing this solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.
>>> 
>>> In the unlikely event that the GNSO seats are left unfilled, the NCSG EC after an election, the EC will follow the procedures outlined in the charter to fill that seat.
>>> 
>>> The decision by the NCSG has clarified how the nota votes are counted and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>> 
>>> The EC feels that we have addressed the concerns of the Letter of Appeal and ask for a response at your earliest convenience.
>>> 
>>> Thank you.
>>> Signed,
>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160827/353dc81f/attachment.html>


From joankerr  Sun Aug 28 00:32:16 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 17:32:16 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <5692E95A-A515-456B-A805-965AB9073F50@ipjustice.org>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9327954E-A9B3-4D77-91E5-B051BA75F62C@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshKZwyzcw3-uWrbCifrVT8=ju74RQv7Mq6GZqqP_ctwnew@mail.gmail.com>
	<AD0C7F7E-728D-4BCE-AD45-19C3F55312AC@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshLqNkbv1ZiTWH_W0P5bEW-HgGNs=7EJtb67PZqX9MHc7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<5692E95A-A515-456B-A805-965AB9073F50@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CADwmsh+FkhOe=ars49GxwF+rWEUsDe3DxgbuSEgA12RhXh9GWA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi All,

This is a great time to take a break and review the agreement we had on the
call.  Perhaps then after reflection, we can address the response directly
and concisely.

Have a great evening.
Joan

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Joan,
>
> I don?t agree to your new interpretation of the discussion, nor your new
> proposed text, and neither do the appellants.  There is no consensus in the
> EC for your new proposal, and without consensus, you may not claim it as an
> EC decision.
>
> Not only is the appeal compromise about to shatter because of your delay
> and new proposal, we now have additional NCSG members who are asking to
> join in the appeal, including EPIC.  Until this appeal is resolved, this
> election is in serious jeopardy and we will be forced to spend time
> fighting over things that should be clearly settled.
>
> In addition to the new text you added, you also deleted the sentence about
> the matter being satisfactorily resolved (although didn?t mention this
> edit).  This omission was noticed by the appellants and is unacceptable to
> them.
>
> You agreed to the language yesterday and today came back with new text and
> a new round of proposals.  That is a problematic action from someone who is
> asking to be our Vice Chair, which requires us to be able to rely on them
> when they say they ?agree" and will send something in the name of the
> committee.
>
> At this point, Joan, you are risking this entire compromise and inviting
> even more trouble on the NCSG by changing your mind and going back on your
> word.
>
> Robin
>
> On Aug 27, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG
> <joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Robin, All
>
> We hadn't agreed on the final text, that was what my email was about.  We
> agreed on the earlier text, pending discussions.
>
> The suggested revision is about clarification.  It distinctly clarifies
> and answers the question of nota votes.  In no way does it not answer that
> question.  All I have done is simply added the agreement we had on the
> call.  There is no disagreement here.  The EC agree to clarify the question
> for the Appellants.  I can't speak for how the members of NCSG EC will
> agree internally, only to say as Chair for the call we agreed only to
> clarify the voting procedure that nota will count.  I am actually acting on
> the direction of the EC Committee and ensuring what we agreed to is done.
>
> Joan
>
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Joan,
>>
>> There won?t be agreement from within this committee, let alone from the
>> 20+ member appellants that we need to compromise with over the new text you
>> are proposing this morning.   It is not helpful to continue to shift the
>> ground we are trying to navigate on.  Please send the text that was agreed
>> to yesterday and stop attempting to chip away at the compromise so our
>> members can be assured that this is no longer a problem.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2016, at 6:56 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Robin, All
>>
>> I want this dealt with correctly.  I didn't changed the context of the
>> letter, only addressed the issue specifically, which is how will the nota
>> votes be counted. I reviewed what the discussion entail at the EC meeting
>> and that's why I suggested the revision. It's simply asking for
>> clarification on whether the nota votes count!
>>
>> I can only do what is correct, and this is to 1) answer the question, and
>> 2) give a solution of a possible outcome way forward which I think the
>> revised version addresses.  Very specific with no interpretation.  The
>> appeal ask for clarification which is given.   The Group asked for
>> clarification and the revised text gives them that.
>>
>> BTW, your letter is actually intact in terms of content, all I have done
>> is simplify the wording.  I hope this clarifies your question.
>>
>> I don't believe my suggestions will further delay the letter as it stands.
>>
>> Joan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Joan,
>>>
>>> I don?t understand what you are doing now.  We had text yesterday that
>>> we had agreement on and you said would be sent when Monika and Poncelet
>>> weigh in.  Now you are proposing new text with new edits.  Please keep in
>>> mind that we have 21 members on the other side of this appeal who must
>>> agree to our compromise and I am concerned that further delay or attempts
>>> to chip away at the compromise are going to jeopardize the compromise
>>> entirely.
>>>
>>> Please go back to the language you agreed to yesterday and let?s put
>>> this issue behind us.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 27, 2016, at 5:03 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear NCSG EC Members,
>>>
>>> I have reviewed the letter drafted by Robin with suggestions by all of
>>> of us. I have made a few edits, please review.  I think we need to just
>>> deal with the decision as discussed on the EC call which was to clarify for
>>> the community whether a nota vote counts and the letter reflects that.  It
>>> is more concise with precise wording without changing the context which we
>>> have already agreed.
>>>
>>> Please review.
>>> Joan
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>
>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
>>> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
>>> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
>>> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>
>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
>>> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response. In that
>>> meeting, we decided a solution that addressed the nota votes to clarify for
>>> the community that candidates *with less votes than nota lose, **and
>>> the* *s**ame number as nota is enough to get in. **This solution **is
>>> to enable the current election to continue and address the concerns in the
>>> Letter of Appeal.*
>>>
>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>> election, using the existing ballots already sent to members, only those
>>> candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the
>>> ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>
>>> The NCSG EC is proposing this solution which will allow us to go forward
>>> with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about
>>> representation and confusion on the ballot.
>>>
>>> In the unlikely event that the GNSO seats are left unfilled, the NCSG EC
>>> after an election, the EC will follow the procedures outlined in the
>>> charter to fill that seat.
>>>
>>> The decision by the NCSG has clarified how the nota votes are counted
>>> and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent
>>> in next year's annual election.
>>>
>>> The EC feels that we have addressed the concerns of the Letter of Appeal
>>> and ask for a response at your earliest convenience.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Signed,
>>>
>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160827/f477de4d/attachment-0001.html>


From Monika.Zalnieriute  Sun Aug 28 01:41:47 2016
From: Monika.Zalnieriute (Zalnieriute, Monika)
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2016 22:41:47 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <5692E95A-A515-456B-A805-965AB9073F50@ipjustice.org>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9327954E-A9B3-4D77-91E5-B051BA75F62C@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshKZwyzcw3-uWrbCifrVT8=ju74RQv7Mq6GZqqP_ctwnew@mail.gmail.com>
	<AD0C7F7E-728D-4BCE-AD45-19C3F55312AC@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshLqNkbv1ZiTWH_W0P5bEW-HgGNs=7EJtb67PZqX9MHc7g@mail.gmail.com>,
	<5692E95A-A515-456B-A805-965AB9073F50@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB556AB736A90EB2DCE0EF81AF6EF0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Dear Joan and Members of the EC,


Indeed, I think that there is any way to ever move forward if we all keep on adding extra text and explanations, once we agreed on the previous draft.


Moreover, in my view, the added text causes confusion in that it adds explanations that are already present under the paragraph that follows immediately under (who is deemed elected).


Most of all, deleting the words 'compromise solution' is alarming, and I do not support this changes,


I would be grateful if we could close the matter as soon as possible,


Best wishes,


Monika









----

Dr. Monika Zalnieriute



Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I

Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu I
Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org I
Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I zephiroplatform.org I
Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I cihr.eu I









________________________________
From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 7:37 PM
To: Joan Kerr
Cc: NCSG EC; Poncelet Ileleji; Zalnieriute, Monika
Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents

Joan,

I don?t agree to your new interpretation of the discussion, nor your new proposed text, and neither do the appellants.  There is no consensus in the EC for your new proposal, and without consensus, you may not claim it as an EC decision.

Not only is the appeal compromise about to shatter because of your delay and new proposal, we now have additional NCSG members who are asking to join in the appeal, including EPIC.  Until this appeal is resolved, this election is in serious jeopardy and we will be forced to spend time fighting over things that should be clearly settled.

In addition to the new text you added, you also deleted the sentence about the matter being satisfactorily resolved (although didn?t mention this edit).  This omission was noticed by the appellants and is unacceptable to them.

You agreed to the language yesterday and today came back with new text and a new round of proposals.  That is a problematic action from someone who is asking to be our Vice Chair, which requires us to be able to rely on them when they say they ?agree" and will send something in the name of the committee.

At this point, Joan, you are risking this entire compromise and inviting even more trouble on the NCSG by changing your mind and going back on your word.

Robin

On Aug 27, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG<mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:

Hi Robin, All

We hadn't agreed on the final text, that was what my email was about.  We agreed on the earlier text, pending discussions.

The suggested revision is about clarification.  It distinctly clarifies and answers the question of nota votes.  In no way does it not answer that question.  All I have done is simply added the agreement we had on the call.  There is no disagreement here.  The EC agree to clarify the question for the Appellants.  I can't speak for how the members of NCSG EC will agree internally, only to say as Chair for the call we agreed only to clarify the voting procedure that nota will count.  I am actually acting on the direction of the EC Committee and ensuring what we agreed to is done.

Joan

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
Hi Joan,

There won?t be agreement from within this committee, let alone from the 20+ member appellants that we need to compromise with over the new text you are proposing this morning.   It is not helpful to continue to shift the ground we are trying to navigate on.  Please send the text that was agreed to yesterday and stop attempting to chip away at the compromise so our members can be assured that this is no longer a problem.

Robin


On Aug 27, 2016, at 6:56 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org<mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:

Hi Robin, All

I want this dealt with correctly.  I didn't changed the context of the letter, only addressed the issue specifically, which is how will the nota votes be counted. I reviewed what the discussion entail at the EC meeting and that's why I suggested the revision. It's simply asking for clarification on whether the nota votes count!

I can only do what is correct, and this is to 1) answer the question, and 2) give a solution of a possible outcome way forward which I think the revised version addresses.  Very specific with no interpretation.  The appeal ask for clarification which is given.   The Group asked for clarification and the revised text gives them that.

BTW, your letter is actually intact in terms of content, all I have done is simplify the wording.  I hope this clarifies your question.

I don't believe my suggestions will further delay the letter as it stands.

Joan




On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
Joan,

I don?t understand what you are doing now.  We had text yesterday that we had agreement on and you said would be sent when Monika and Poncelet weigh in.  Now you are proposing new text with new edits.  Please keep in mind that we have 21 members on the other side of this appeal who must agree to our compromise and I am concerned that further delay or attempts to chip away at the compromise are going to jeopardize the compromise entirely.

Please go back to the language you agreed to yesterday and let?s put this issue behind us.

Thanks,
Robin


On Aug 27, 2016, at 5:03 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org<mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:

Dear NCSG EC Members,

I have reviewed the letter drafted by Robin with suggestions by all of of us. I have made a few edits, please review.  I think we need to just deal with the decision as discussed on the EC call which was to clarify for the community whether a nota vote counts and the letter reflects that.  It is more concise with precise wording without changing the context which we have already agreed.

Please review.
Joan



Dear Appellants,


This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.


The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response. In that meeting, we decided a solution that addressed the nota votes to clarify for the community that candidates with less votes than nota lose, and the same number as nota is enough to get in. This solution is to enable the current election to continue and address the concerns in the Letter of Appeal.


Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election, using the existing ballots already sent to members, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.


The NCSG EC is proposing this solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.


In the unlikely event that the GNSO seats are left unfilled, the NCSG EC after an election, the EC will follow the procedures outlined in the charter to fill that seat.


The decision by the NCSG has clarified how the nota votes are counted and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.


The EC feels that we have addressed the concerns of the Letter of Appeal and ask for a response at your earliest convenience.


Thank you.

Signed,

Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group

_______________________________________________
EC-NCSG mailing list
EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg






The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160827/daa8b261/attachment-0001.html>


From joankerr  Sun Aug 28 13:33:30 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 06:33:30 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB556AB736A90EB2DCE0EF81AF6EF0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9327954E-A9B3-4D77-91E5-B051BA75F62C@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshKZwyzcw3-uWrbCifrVT8=ju74RQv7Mq6GZqqP_ctwnew@mail.gmail.com>
	<AD0C7F7E-728D-4BCE-AD45-19C3F55312AC@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshLqNkbv1ZiTWH_W0P5bEW-HgGNs=7EJtb67PZqX9MHc7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<5692E95A-A515-456B-A805-965AB9073F50@ipjustice.org>
	<DB3PR05MB556AB736A90EB2DCE0EF81AF6EF0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CADwmshJJPOG8ZsN2nchxSDosCNj=3h=L+ArsVAnyCkFPUD-aUQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Monika, All

Thank you for your email.  I will revise the draft and forward it to the EC
shortly, unfortunately I have to leave in an hour and away all day so it
won't be until Monday.

Joan



On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Zalnieriute, Monika <
Monika.Zalnieriute at eui.eu> wrote:

> Dear Joan and Members of the EC,
>
>
> Indeed, I think that there is any way to ever move forward if we all keep
> on adding extra text and explanations, once we agreed on the previous draft.
>
>
> Moreover, in my view, the added text causes confusion in that it adds
> explanations that are already present under the paragraph that follows
> immediately under (who is deemed elected).
>
>
> Most of all, deleting the words 'compromise solution' is alarming, and I
> do not support this changes,
>
>
> I would be grateful if we could close the matter as soon as possible,
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
> Monika
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----
>
> Dr. Monika Zalnieriute
>
>
> Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I
>
> Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I
> cmds.ceu.edu I
>
> Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org
> I
>
> Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I
> zephiroplatform.org I
>
> Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I
> cihr.eu I
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 27, 2016 7:37 PM
> *To:* Joan Kerr
> *Cc:* NCSG EC; Poncelet Ileleji; Zalnieriute, Monika
> *Subject:* Re: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
>
> Joan,
>
> I don?t agree to your new interpretation of the discussion, nor your new
> proposed text, and neither do the appellants.  There is no consensus in the
> EC for your new proposal, and without consensus, you may not claim it as an
> EC decision.
>
> Not only is the appeal compromise about to shatter because of your delay
> and new proposal, we now have additional NCSG members who are asking to
> join in the appeal, including EPIC.  Until this appeal is resolved, this
> election is in serious jeopardy and we will be forced to spend time
> fighting over things that should be clearly settled.
>
> In addition to the new text you added, you also deleted the sentence about
> the matter being satisfactorily resolved (although didn?t mention this
> edit).  This omission was noticed by the appellants and is unacceptable to
> them.
>
> You agreed to the language yesterday and today came back with new text and
> a new round of proposals.  That is a problematic action from someone who is
> asking to be our Vice Chair, which requires us to be able to rely on them
> when they say they ?agree" and will send something in the name of the
> committee.
>
> At this point, Joan, you are risking this entire compromise and inviting
> even more trouble on the NCSG by changing your mind and going back on your
> word.
>
> Robin
>
> On Aug 27, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG
> <joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Robin, All
>
> We hadn't agreed on the final text, that was what my email was about.  We
> agreed on the earlier text, pending discussions.
>
> The suggested revision is about clarification.  It distinctly clarifies
> and answers the question of nota votes.  In no way does it not answer that
> question.  All I have done is simply added the agreement we had on the
> call.  There is no disagreement here.  The EC agree to clarify the question
> for the Appellants.  I can't speak for how the members of NCSG EC will
> agree internally, only to say as Chair for the call we agreed only to
> clarify the voting procedure that nota will count.  I am actually acting on
> the direction of the EC Committee and ensuring what we agreed to is done.
>
> Joan
>
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Joan,
>>
>> There won?t be agreement from within this committee, let alone from the
>> 20+ member appellants that we need to compromise with over the new text you
>> are proposing this morning.   It is not helpful to continue to shift the
>> ground we are trying to navigate on.  Please send the text that was agreed
>> to yesterday and stop attempting to chip away at the compromise so our
>> members can be assured that this is no longer a problem.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2016, at 6:56 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Robin, All
>>
>> I want this dealt with correctly.  I didn't changed the context of the
>> letter, only addressed the issue specifically, which is how will the nota
>> votes be counted. I reviewed what the discussion entail at the EC meeting
>> and that's why I suggested the revision. It's simply asking for
>> clarification on whether the nota votes count!
>>
>> I can only do what is correct, and this is to 1) answer the question, and
>> 2) give a solution of a possible outcome way forward which I think the
>> revised version addresses.  Very specific with no interpretation.  The
>> appeal ask for clarification which is given.   The Group asked for
>> clarification and the revised text gives them that.
>>
>> BTW, your letter is actually intact in terms of content, all I have done
>> is simplify the wording.  I hope this clarifies your question.
>>
>> I don't believe my suggestions will further delay the letter as it stands.
>>
>> Joan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Joan,
>>>
>>> I don?t understand what you are doing now.  We had text yesterday that
>>> we had agreement on and you said would be sent when Monika and Poncelet
>>> weigh in.  Now you are proposing new text with new edits.  Please keep in
>>> mind that we have 21 members on the other side of this appeal who must
>>> agree to our compromise and I am concerned that further delay or attempts
>>> to chip away at the compromise are going to jeopardize the compromise
>>> entirely.
>>>
>>> Please go back to the language you agreed to yesterday and let?s put
>>> this issue behind us.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 27, 2016, at 5:03 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear NCSG EC Members,
>>>
>>> I have reviewed the letter drafted by Robin with suggestions by all of
>>> of us. I have made a few edits, please review.  I think we need to just
>>> deal with the decision as discussed on the EC call which was to clarify for
>>> the community whether a nota vote counts and the letter reflects that.  It
>>> is more concise with precise wording without changing the context which we
>>> have already agreed.
>>>
>>> Please review.
>>> Joan
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>
>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
>>> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
>>> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
>>> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>
>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
>>> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response. In that
>>> meeting, we decided a solution that addressed the nota votes to clarify for
>>> the community that candidates *with less votes than nota lose, **and
>>> the* *s**ame number as nota is enough to get in. **This solution **is
>>> to enable the current election to continue and address the concerns in the
>>> Letter of Appeal.*
>>>
>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>> election, using the existing ballots already sent to members, only those
>>> candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the
>>> ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>
>>> The NCSG EC is proposing this solution which will allow us to go forward
>>> with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about
>>> representation and confusion on the ballot.
>>>
>>> In the unlikely event that the GNSO seats are left unfilled, the NCSG EC
>>> after an election, the EC will follow the procedures outlined in the
>>> charter to fill that seat.
>>>
>>> The decision by the NCSG has clarified how the nota votes are counted
>>> and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent
>>> in next year's annual election.
>>>
>>> The EC feels that we have addressed the concerns of the Letter of Appeal
>>> and ask for a response at your earliest convenience.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Signed,
>>>
>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
> forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
> this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160828/384dbd13/attachment-0001.html>


From pileleji  Sun Aug 28 17:08:41 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 14:08:41 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB556AB736A90EB2DCE0EF81AF6EF0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9327954E-A9B3-4D77-91E5-B051BA75F62C@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshKZwyzcw3-uWrbCifrVT8=ju74RQv7Mq6GZqqP_ctwnew@mail.gmail.com>
	<AD0C7F7E-728D-4BCE-AD45-19C3F55312AC@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshLqNkbv1ZiTWH_W0P5bEW-HgGNs=7EJtb67PZqX9MHc7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<5692E95A-A515-456B-A805-965AB9073F50@ipjustice.org>
	<DB3PR05MB556AB736A90EB2DCE0EF81AF6EF0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAEux40s=RNN0Ow6u=vRmUJt3ffTz-UD2L37fkHzsqJfNJ+hdSA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello All,

I think we go ahead with Robin text, Joan, I suggested Robin does  the
draft  based on the fact she knows the language and terms that will be
agreeable to the 21 appellant as per the fact she is more knowledgeable
than us all in the workings of the NCSG based on institutional memory and
service as chair before,  and we can't take that away.  Secondly we need to
have a consensus text to move on, so lets keep the original text, if we
don't do I am afraid to say we will have a stalemate on this, and we don't
want that.

Thank you

Poncelet

On 27 August 2016 at 22:41, Zalnieriute, Monika <Monika.Zalnieriute at eui.eu>
wrote:

> Dear Joan and Members of the EC,
>
>
> Indeed, I think that there is any way to ever move forward if we all keep
> on adding extra text and explanations, once we agreed on the previous draft.
>
>
> Moreover, in my view, the added text causes confusion in that it adds
> explanations that are already present under the paragraph that follows
> immediately under (who is deemed elected).
>
>
> Most of all, deleting the words 'compromise solution' is alarming, and I
> do not support this changes,
>
>
> I would be grateful if we could close the matter as soon as possible,
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
> Monika
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----
>
> Dr. Monika Zalnieriute
>
>
> Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I
>
> Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I
> cmds.ceu.edu I
>
> Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org
> I
>
> Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I
> zephiroplatform.org I
>
> Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I
> cihr.eu I
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 27, 2016 7:37 PM
> *To:* Joan Kerr
> *Cc:* NCSG EC; Poncelet Ileleji; Zalnieriute, Monika
> *Subject:* Re: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
>
> Joan,
>
> I don?t agree to your new interpretation of the discussion, nor your new
> proposed text, and neither do the appellants.  There is no consensus in the
> EC for your new proposal, and without consensus, you may not claim it as an
> EC decision.
>
> Not only is the appeal compromise about to shatter because of your delay
> and new proposal, we now have additional NCSG members who are asking to
> join in the appeal, including EPIC.  Until this appeal is resolved, this
> election is in serious jeopardy and we will be forced to spend time
> fighting over things that should be clearly settled.
>
> In addition to the new text you added, you also deleted the sentence about
> the matter being satisfactorily resolved (although didn?t mention this
> edit).  This omission was noticed by the appellants and is unacceptable to
> them.
>
> You agreed to the language yesterday and today came back with new text and
> a new round of proposals.  That is a problematic action from someone who is
> asking to be our Vice Chair, which requires us to be able to rely on them
> when they say they ?agree" and will send something in the name of the
> committee.
>
> At this point, Joan, you are risking this entire compromise and inviting
> even more trouble on the NCSG by changing your mind and going back on your
> word.
>
> Robin
>
> On Aug 27, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG
> <joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Robin, All
>
> We hadn't agreed on the final text, that was what my email was about.  We
> agreed on the earlier text, pending discussions.
>
> The suggested revision is about clarification.  It distinctly clarifies
> and answers the question of nota votes.  In no way does it not answer that
> question.  All I have done is simply added the agreement we had on the
> call.  There is no disagreement here.  The EC agree to clarify the question
> for the Appellants.  I can't speak for how the members of NCSG EC will
> agree internally, only to say as Chair for the call we agreed only to
> clarify the voting procedure that nota will count.  I am actually acting on
> the direction of the EC Committee and ensuring what we agreed to is done.
>
> Joan
>
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Joan,
>>
>> There won?t be agreement from within this committee, let alone from the
>> 20+ member appellants that we need to compromise with over the new text you
>> are proposing this morning.   It is not helpful to continue to shift the
>> ground we are trying to navigate on.  Please send the text that was agreed
>> to yesterday and stop attempting to chip away at the compromise so our
>> members can be assured that this is no longer a problem.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2016, at 6:56 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Robin, All
>>
>> I want this dealt with correctly.  I didn't changed the context of the
>> letter, only addressed the issue specifically, which is how will the nota
>> votes be counted. I reviewed what the discussion entail at the EC meeting
>> and that's why I suggested the revision. It's simply asking for
>> clarification on whether the nota votes count!
>>
>> I can only do what is correct, and this is to 1) answer the question, and
>> 2) give a solution of a possible outcome way forward which I think the
>> revised version addresses.  Very specific with no interpretation.  The
>> appeal ask for clarification which is given.   The Group asked for
>> clarification and the revised text gives them that.
>>
>> BTW, your letter is actually intact in terms of content, all I have done
>> is simplify the wording.  I hope this clarifies your question.
>>
>> I don't believe my suggestions will further delay the letter as it stands.
>>
>> Joan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Joan,
>>>
>>> I don?t understand what you are doing now.  We had text yesterday that
>>> we had agreement on and you said would be sent when Monika and Poncelet
>>> weigh in.  Now you are proposing new text with new edits.  Please keep in
>>> mind that we have 21 members on the other side of this appeal who must
>>> agree to our compromise and I am concerned that further delay or attempts
>>> to chip away at the compromise are going to jeopardize the compromise
>>> entirely.
>>>
>>> Please go back to the language you agreed to yesterday and let?s put
>>> this issue behind us.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 27, 2016, at 5:03 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear NCSG EC Members,
>>>
>>> I have reviewed the letter drafted by Robin with suggestions by all of
>>> of us. I have made a few edits, please review.  I think we need to just
>>> deal with the decision as discussed on the EC call which was to clarify for
>>> the community whether a nota vote counts and the letter reflects that.  It
>>> is more concise with precise wording without changing the context which we
>>> have already agreed.
>>>
>>> Please review.
>>> Joan
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>
>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
>>> of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
>>> the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
>>> ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>
>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August
>>> to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response. In that
>>> meeting, we decided a solution that addressed the nota votes to clarify for
>>> the community that candidates *with less votes than nota lose, **and
>>> the* *s**ame number as nota is enough to get in. **This solution **is
>>> to enable the current election to continue and address the concerns in the
>>> Letter of Appeal.*
>>>
>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual
>>> election, using the existing ballots already sent to members, only those
>>> candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the
>>> ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>
>>> The NCSG EC is proposing this solution which will allow us to go forward
>>> with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about
>>> representation and confusion on the ballot.
>>>
>>> In the unlikely event that the GNSO seats are left unfilled, the NCSG EC
>>> after an election, the EC will follow the procedures outlined in the
>>> charter to fill that seat.
>>>
>>> The decision by the NCSG has clarified how the nota votes are counted
>>> and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent
>>> in next year's annual election.
>>>
>>> The EC feels that we have addressed the concerns of the Letter of Appeal
>>> and ask for a response at your earliest convenience.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>>
>>> Signed,
>>>
>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
> forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
> this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.
>



-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160828/788dca71/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Sun Aug 28 18:20:41 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 08:20:41 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40s=RNN0Ow6u=vRmUJt3ffTz-UD2L37fkHzsqJfNJ+hdSA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9327954E-A9B3-4D77-91E5-B051BA75F62C@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshKZwyzcw3-uWrbCifrVT8=ju74RQv7Mq6GZqqP_ctwnew@mail.gmail.com>
	<AD0C7F7E-728D-4BCE-AD45-19C3F55312AC@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshLqNkbv1ZiTWH_W0P5bEW-HgGNs=7EJtb67PZqX9MHc7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<5692E95A-A515-456B-A805-965AB9073F50@ipjustice.org>
	<DB3PR05MB556AB736A90EB2DCE0EF81AF6EF0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAEux40s=RNN0Ow6u=vRmUJt3ffTz-UD2L37fkHzsqJfNJ+hdSA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AA74F3FB-7993-4B65-A8BA-ADF63B8B9426@ipjustice.org>

Thank you.  This will reassure our members that the election is not in jeopardy and can put this appeal is behind us. - Robin

Final Text:
_________________

Dear Appellants,

This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.

The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response.  In that meeting, we decided to propose a compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing election as requested.

Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members, but with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for GNSO Council, those candidates who receive less votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.  Any candidate who ties with NOTA in number of votes is elected.

We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.  

The NCSG Charter indicates that vacancies to the GNSO Council are appointed by the NCSG EC, so in the unlikely event that any GNSO seats are left unfilled after an election, we have EC procedures to fill that seat.  

We regret the confusion caused and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.

Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is acceptable and that your appeal is satisfactorily resolved.  Thank you.

Signed,
Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group

_________________


> On Aug 28, 2016, at 7:08 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> I think we go ahead with Robin text, Joan, I suggested Robin does  the draft  based on the fact she knows the language and terms that will be agreeable to the 21 appellant as per the fact she is more knowledgeable than us all in the workings of the NCSG based on institutional memory and service as chair before,  and we can't take that away.  Secondly we need to have a consensus text to move on, so lets keep the original text, if we don't do I am afraid to say we will have a stalemate on this, and we don't want that.  
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Poncelet 
> 
> On 27 August 2016 at 22:41, Zalnieriute, Monika <Monika.Zalnieriute at eui.eu <mailto:Monika.Zalnieriute at eui.eu>> wrote:
> Dear Joan and Members of the EC,
> 
> 
> Indeed, I think that there is any way to ever move forward if we all keep on adding extra text and explanations, once we agreed on the previous draft.
> 
> 
> Moreover, in my view, the added text causes confusion in that it adds explanations that are already present under the paragraph that follows immediately under (who is deemed elected).
> 
> 
> Most of all, deleting the words 'compromise solution' is alarming, and I do not support this changes,
> 
> 
> I would be grateful if we could close the matter as soon as possible,
> 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> 
> Monika
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> 
> Dr. Monika Zalnieriute
> 
> 
> Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au <http://law.unimelb.edu.au/> I
> Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu <http://cmds.ceu.edu/> I
> Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org <http://icann.org/> I
> 
> Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I zephiroplatform.org <http://zephiroplatform.org/> I
> 
> Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I cihr.eu <http://cihr.eu/> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
> Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 7:37 PM
> To: Joan Kerr
> Cc: NCSG EC; Poncelet Ileleji; Zalnieriute, Monika
> Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
>  
> Joan,
> 
> I don?t agree to your new interpretation of the discussion, nor your new proposed text, and neither do the appellants.  There is no consensus in the EC for your new proposal, and without consensus, you may not claim it as an EC decision.
> 
> Not only is the appeal compromise about to shatter because of your delay and new proposal, we now have additional NCSG members who are asking to join in the appeal, including EPIC.  Until this appeal is resolved, this election is in serious jeopardy and we will be forced to spend time fighting over things that should be clearly settled.  
> 
> In addition to the new text you added, you also deleted the sentence about the matter being satisfactorily resolved (although didn?t mention this edit).  This omission was noticed by the appellants and is unacceptable to them.
> 
> You agreed to the language yesterday and today came back with new text and a new round of proposals.  That is a problematic action from someone who is asking to be our Vice Chair, which requires us to be able to rely on them when they say they ?agree" and will send something in the name of the committee.
> 
> At this point, Joan, you are risking this entire compromise and inviting even more trouble on the NCSG by changing your mind and going back on your word.
> 
> Robin
> 
>> On Aug 27, 2016, at 7:29 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Robin, All
>> 
>> We hadn't agreed on the final text, that was what my email was about.  We agreed on the earlier text, pending discussions. 
>> 
>> The suggested revision is about clarification.  It distinctly clarifies and answers the question of nota votes.  In no way does it not answer that question.  All I have done is simply added the agreement we had on the call.  There is no disagreement here.  The EC agree to clarify the question for the Appellants.  I can't speak for how the members of NCSG EC will agree internally, only to say as Chair for the call we agreed only to clarify the voting procedure that nota will count.  I am actually acting on the direction of the EC Committee and ensuring what we agreed to is done.
>> 
>> Joan 
>> 
>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>> Hi Joan,
>> 
>> There won?t be agreement from within this committee, let alone from the 20+ member appellants that we need to compromise with over the new text you are proposing this morning.   It is not helpful to continue to shift the ground we are trying to navigate on.  Please send the text that was agreed to yesterday and stop attempting to chip away at the compromise so our members can be assured that this is no longer a problem.
>> 
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 27, 2016, at 6:56 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Robin, All
>>> 
>>> I want this dealt with correctly.  I didn't changed the context of the letter, only addressed the issue specifically, which is how will the nota votes be counted. I reviewed what the discussion entail at the EC meeting and that's why I suggested the revision. It's simply asking for clarification on whether the nota votes count!
>>> 
>>> I can only do what is correct, and this is to 1) answer the question, and 2) give a solution of a possible outcome way forward which I think the revised version addresses.  Very specific with no interpretation.  The appeal ask for clarification which is given.   The Group asked for clarification and the revised text gives them that.
>>> 
>>> BTW, your letter is actually intact in terms of content, all I have done is simplify the wording.  I hope this clarifies your question.
>>> 
>>> I don't believe my suggestions will further delay the letter as it stands.
>>> 
>>> Joan
>>>   
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 8:54 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>> Joan,
>>> 
>>> I don?t understand what you are doing now.  We had text yesterday that we had agreement on and you said would be sent when Monika and Poncelet weigh in.  Now you are proposing new text with new edits.  Please keep in mind that we have 21 members on the other side of this appeal who must agree to our compromise and I am concerned that further delay or attempts to chip away at the compromise are going to jeopardize the compromise entirely.  
>>> 
>>> Please go back to the language you agreed to yesterday and let?s put this issue behind us.  
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 27, 2016, at 5:03 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear NCSG EC Members,
>>>> 
>>>> I have reviewed the letter drafted by Robin with suggestions by all of of us. I have made a few edits, please review.  I think we need to just deal with the decision as discussed on the EC call which was to clarify for the community whether a nota vote counts and the letter reflects that.  It is more concise with precise wording without changing the context which we have already agreed.
>>>> 
>>>> Please review.
>>>> Joan
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Appellants,
>>>> 
>>>> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>>>> 
>>>> The NCSG EC held an emergency meeting of the full committee on 24 August to discuss the appeal and consider possible options in response. In that meeting, we decided a solution that addressed the nota votes to clarify for the community that candidates with less votes than nota lose, and the same number as nota is enough to get in. This solution is to enable the current election to continue and address the concerns in the Letter of Appeal.
>>>> 
>>>> Specifically, the EC proposes that we continue with the ongoing annual election, using the existing ballots already sent to members, only those candidates who receive more votes than ?None of the Above? (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed elected to the GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>>>> 
>>>> The NCSG EC is proposing this solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on the ballot.
>>>> 
>>>> In the unlikely event that the GNSO seats are left unfilled, the NCSG EC after an election, the EC will follow the procedures outlined in the charter to fill that seat.
>>>> 
>>>> The decision by the NCSG has clarified how the nota votes are counted and will endeavor to fix any remaining concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>>>> 
>>>> The EC feels that we have addressed the concerns of the Letter of Appeal and ask for a response at your earliest convenience.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> Signed,
>>>> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>  
> 
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160828/cab53eb4/attachment-0001.html>


From ncsg  Sun Aug 28 22:56:53 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 22:56:53 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40s=RNN0Ow6u=vRmUJt3ffTz-UD2L37fkHzsqJfNJ+hdSA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9327954E-A9B3-4D77-91E5-B051BA75F62C@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshKZwyzcw3-uWrbCifrVT8=ju74RQv7Mq6GZqqP_ctwnew@mail.gmail.com>
	<AD0C7F7E-728D-4BCE-AD45-19C3F55312AC@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshLqNkbv1ZiTWH_W0P5bEW-HgGNs=7EJtb67PZqX9MHc7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<5692E95A-A515-456B-A805-965AB9073F50@ipjustice.org>
	<DB3PR05MB556AB736A90EB2DCE0EF81AF6EF0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAEux40s=RNN0Ow6u=vRmUJt3ffTz-UD2L37fkHzsqJfNJ+hdSA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160828195653.GA21980@tarvainen.info>

Dear all,

Without now going in detail about the differences in your various
drafts (at quick look it doesn't seem hard to reconcile them, but I
haven't read them thoroughly and may have missed something), one thing
I want to do is make as sure as possible is that our decision will be
formally solid - don't leave any obvious problems someone might be
able to complain about.

One issue that needs to be addressed on the record: Robin and Monika
are appellants themselves and have an apparent conflict of interest.
They can't act on both sides of the dispute, but should recuse
themselves from formal decisions directly about the appeal.

This does not need to have much of practical impact.

I would suggest doing it as narrowly as possible: only on decisions
that are explicitly and directly about the appeal.

In particular that would exclude the EC decision on Wednesday. While
it was made as a reaction to the appeal, it was not formally about it:
EC just decided how to proceed with the election and ballots.
So there's no need to revisit that decision.

This would affect the official response to the appealants in that
formally it would not need (or should have) Robin's and Monika's
approval - but they would be able to reject it as appealants anyway.
And of course it would make no sense for us to send a letter that we
know in advance would be rejected, so for practical purposes we would
still all need to agree.

And of course I don't intend to limit discussion in any way, only note
that formally Robin and Monika would be talking as appealants rather
than as EC members.

On the other hand there is no formal need for me to recuse myself from
the letter. On the contrary: given that the appeal is in effect about
my acts even though formally addressed to the EC, I should accept
responsibility of what I've done and acknowledge that I accept EC's
decision. Recusal on the response letter would be an implied objection
to it and I should not be doing that.

To repeat: this would not change the way we do this in practice, I'm
not trying to add extra complications or delays, but to remove a
potential cause for someone to question the validity of our decision
and maybe even try to overthrow it.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From ncsg  Mon Aug 29 09:07:40 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 09:07:40 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160829060740.GA27333@tarvainen.info>

Dear all,

Now I've read the discussion and the various drafts of the letter.
A few points:

First, it is important to be precise, in particular the point about
what happens in case of tie with NOTA, but I'm happy with any wording
that's unambiguous.

Second, I think it would be useful to explicitly state that voting for
NotA along with one or two candidates is allowed, rather than leaving
it implied.

Third, I don't want to leave the impression that the Chair would not
face a possible rejection, so in

"with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces
possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
GNSO Council [...]"

I would drop the words "with respect to the election
for GNSO Council".

Fourth, I'm fine with calling this a compromise solution.

Fifth, I have one major problem with the letter: it does not clearly
point the blame to where it belongs, namely me. I want to add text
explicitly blaming me for acting on my own without EC's consensus.

So, here's my suggestion for the letter:


"This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August
2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to
continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.

In fact the EC did not make such a decision: it was an unilateral act
of the Chair, which the EC did not approve and decided to override in
its emergency meeting on August 24. The Chair, by signing this letter,
accepts his responsibility and the EC's chastisement of his hasty
action.

In its meeting the EC discussed the the appeal and considered possible
options in response. In that meeting, the EC decided to propose a
compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the
ongoing election as requested.

Specifically, the EC decided to continue with the ongoing annual
election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already
sent to members, but with the understanding that voting simultaneously
for "None of the Above" and one or two candidates for council is
valid, and that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection,
which means that those candidates who receive less votes than "None of
the Above" (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed not elected to the
GNSO Council in this year?s election.

We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation
and confusion on the ballot.

In the unlikely event that the GNSO seats are left unfilled after the
election, the EC will follow the procedures described in the charter to
fill that seat.

We regret the confusion caused and will endeavour to fix any remaining
concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.

Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly
withdrawn. Thank you.

Signed,
Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group"

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen



From Monika.Zalnieriute  Mon Aug 29 09:29:18 2016
From: Monika.Zalnieriute (Zalnieriute, Monika)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 06:29:18 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <20160829060740.GA27333@tarvainen.info>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>,
	<20160829060740.GA27333@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <DB3PR05MB55611FFB48402E102AEDDBAF6E10@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Dear Tapani and all,


Tapani, thank You very much for drafting this. I think its very nice of You to accept responsibility, and also clearly state this in the letter to the appellants.


I think this should get us going, and get this matter solved:)


Others agreeing, I am happy to send this letter,


Best wishes,


Monika




----

Dr. Monika Zalnieriute



Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I

Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu I
Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org I
Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I zephiroplatform.org I
Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I cihr.eu I









________________________________
From: EC-NCSG <ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> on behalf of Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 6:07 AM
To: ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents

Dear all,

Now I've read the discussion and the various drafts of the letter.
A few points:

First, it is important to be precise, in particular the point about
what happens in case of tie with NOTA, but I'm happy with any wording
that's unambiguous.

Second, I think it would be useful to explicitly state that voting for
NotA along with one or two candidates is allowed, rather than leaving
it implied.

Third, I don't want to leave the impression that the Chair would not
face a possible rejection, so in

"with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces
possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
GNSO Council [...]"

I would drop the words "with respect to the election
for GNSO Council".

Fourth, I'm fine with calling this a compromise solution.

Fifth, I have one major problem with the letter: it does not clearly
point the blame to where it belongs, namely me. I want to add text
explicitly blaming me for acting on my own without EC's consensus.

So, here's my suggestion for the letter:


"This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August
2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to
continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.

In fact the EC did not make such a decision: it was an unilateral act
of the Chair, which the EC did not approve and decided to override in
its emergency meeting on August 24. The Chair, by signing this letter,
accepts his responsibility and the EC's chastisement of his hasty
action.

In its meeting the EC discussed the the appeal and considered possible
options in response. In that meeting, the EC decided to propose a
compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the
ongoing election as requested.

Specifically, the EC decided to continue with the ongoing annual
election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already
sent to members, but with the understanding that voting simultaneously
for "None of the Above" and one or two candidates for council is
valid, and that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection,
which means that those candidates who receive less votes than "None of
the Above" (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed not elected to the
GNSO Council in this year's election.

We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation
and confusion on the ballot.

In the unlikely event that the GNSO seats are left unfilled after the
election, the EC will follow the procedures described in the charter to
fill that seat.

We regret the confusion caused and will endeavour to fix any remaining
concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.

Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly
withdrawn. Thank you.

Signed,
Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group"

--
Tapani Tarvainen

_______________________________________________
EC-NCSG mailing list
EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160829/1770425a/attachment-0001.html>


From pileleji  Mon Aug 29 14:04:41 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:04:41 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <DB3PR05MB55611FFB48402E102AEDDBAF6E10@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160829060740.GA27333@tarvainen.info>
	<DB3PR05MB55611FFB48402E102AEDDBAF6E10@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CAEux40sBfjXXdUekaKnm08fvr=5ksNAmbtw4V3YxYeiQ_XvfFQ@mail.gmail.com>

As Monika, has endorsed, if its okay with Joan and Robin then good to go,
its better we clear this.

Thanks

On 29 August 2016 at 06:29, Zalnieriute, Monika <Monika.Zalnieriute at eui.eu>
wrote:

> Dear Tapani and all,
>
>
> Tapani, thank You very much for drafting this. I think its very nice of
> You to accept responsibility, and also clearly state this in the letter to
> the appellants.
>
>
> I think this should get us going, and get this matter solved:)
>
>
> Others agreeing, I am happy to send this letter,
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
> Monika
>
>
>
>
> ----
>
> Dr. Monika Zalnieriute
>
>
> Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I
>
> Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I
> cmds.ceu.edu I
>
> Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org
> I
>
> Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I
> zephiroplatform.org I
>
> Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I
> cihr.eu I
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* EC-NCSG <ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org> on behalf of Tapani
> Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 29, 2016 6:07 AM
> *To:* ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> *Subject:* Re: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
>
> Dear all,
>
> Now I've read the discussion and the various drafts of the letter.
> A few points:
>
> First, it is important to be precise, in particular the point about
> what happens in case of tie with NOTA, but I'm happy with any wording
> that's unambiguous.
>
> Second, I think it would be useful to explicitly state that voting for
> NotA along with one or two candidates is allowed, rather than leaving
> it implied.
>
> Third, I don't want to leave the impression that the Chair would not
> face a possible rejection, so in
>
> "with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces
> possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
> GNSO Council [...]"
>
> I would drop the words "with respect to the election
> for GNSO Council".
>
> Fourth, I'm fine with calling this a compromise solution.
>
> Fifth, I have one major problem with the letter: it does not clearly
> point the blame to where it belongs, namely me. I want to add text
> explicitly blaming me for acting on my own without EC's consensus.
>
> So, here's my suggestion for the letter:
>
>
> "This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
> members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August
> 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to
> continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>
> In fact the EC did not make such a decision: it was an unilateral act
> of the Chair, which the EC did not approve and decided to override in
> its emergency meeting on August 24. The Chair, by signing this letter,
> accepts his responsibility and the EC's chastisement of his hasty
> action.
>
> In its meeting the EC discussed the the appeal and considered possible
> options in response. In that meeting, the EC decided to propose a
> compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the
> ongoing election as requested.
>
> Specifically, the EC decided to continue with the ongoing annual
> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already
> sent to members, but with the understanding that voting simultaneously
> for "None of the Above" and one or two candidates for council is
> valid, and that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection,
> which means that those candidates who receive less votes than "None of
> the Above" (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed not elected to the
> GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>
> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
> it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
> election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation
> and confusion on the ballot.
>
> In the unlikely event that the GNSO seats are left unfilled after the
> election, the EC will follow the procedures described in the charter to
> fill that seat.
>
> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavour to fix any remaining
> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>
> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
> proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly
> withdrawn. Thank you.
>
> Signed,
> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group"
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
> forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
> this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
>


-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160829/b554a080/attachment.html>


From joankerr  Mon Aug 29 14:19:39 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:19:39 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <20160829060740.GA27333@tarvainen.info>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160829060740.GA27333@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CADwmshKC_xe2vkZpGc7BMyN9n60zkj8+Ks=AbEj2m8R+wTRDpA@mail.gmail.com>

Tapani,

Thanks for sending this.  Thanks Poncelet and Monika for your responses

Robin,

If you are in agreement, I would like to post this today.
Please let me know.
Cheers,
Joan




On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 2:07 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <
ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Now I've read the discussion and the various drafts of the letter.
> A few points:
>
> First, it is important to be precise, in particular the point about
> what happens in case of tie with NOTA, but I'm happy with any wording
> that's unambiguous.
>
> Second, I think it would be useful to explicitly state that voting for
> NotA along with one or two candidates is allowed, rather than leaving
> it implied.
>
> Third, I don't want to leave the impression that the Chair would not
> face a possible rejection, so in
>
> "with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces
> possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
> GNSO Council [...]"
>
> I would drop the words "with respect to the election
> for GNSO Council".
>
> Fourth, I'm fine with calling this a compromise solution.
>
> Fifth, I have one major problem with the letter: it does not clearly
> point the blame to where it belongs, namely me. I want to add text
> explicitly blaming me for acting on my own without EC's consensus.
>
> So, here's my suggestion for the letter:
>
>
> "This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
> members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August
> 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to
> continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
>
> In fact the EC did not make such a decision: it was an unilateral act
> of the Chair, which the EC did not approve and decided to override in
> its emergency meeting on August 24. The Chair, by signing this letter,
> accepts his responsibility and the EC's chastisement of his hasty
> action.
>
> In its meeting the EC discussed the the appeal and considered possible
> options in response. In that meeting, the EC decided to propose a
> compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the
> ongoing election as requested.
>
> Specifically, the EC decided to continue with the ongoing annual
> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already
> sent to members, but with the understanding that voting simultaneously
> for "None of the Above" and one or two candidates for council is
> valid, and that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection,
> which means that those candidates who receive less votes than "None of
> the Above" (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed not elected to the
> GNSO Council in this year?s election.
>
> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
> it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
> election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation
> and confusion on the ballot.
>
> In the unlikely event that the GNSO seats are left unfilled after the
> election, the EC will follow the procedures described in the charter to
> fill that seat.
>
> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavour to fix any remaining
> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
>
> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
> proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly
> withdrawn. Thank you.
>
> Signed,
> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group"
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160829/b35bb4ed/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Mon Aug 29 17:43:57 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 07:43:57 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <20160828195653.GA21980@tarvainen.info>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9327954E-A9B3-4D77-91E5-B051BA75F62C@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshKZwyzcw3-uWrbCifrVT8=ju74RQv7Mq6GZqqP_ctwnew@mail.gmail.com>
	<AD0C7F7E-728D-4BCE-AD45-19C3F55312AC@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshLqNkbv1ZiTWH_W0P5bEW-HgGNs=7EJtb67PZqX9MHc7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<5692E95A-A515-456B-A805-965AB9073F50@ipjustice.org>
	<DB3PR05MB556AB736A90EB2DCE0EF81AF6EF0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAEux40s=RNN0Ow6u=vRmUJt3ffTz-UD2L37fkHzsqJfNJ+hdSA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160828195653.GA21980@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <D996E576-695C-4B9E-8A58-96E68F99F943@ipjustice.org>

Sorry Tapani, you are still very wrong.  And you are no position to change clear facts and re-write history, even though you seem to be suffering from "sour grapes" in your attempt to do so.

These facts remain unchanged:

1.  The EC held a meeting last week to decide on the members' appeal and we came to a decision in that meeting.
2.  You recused yourself from that decision because of your conflict of interest in this election.  
3.  You are the only member of the EC who is also a candidate in this election and you must defeat NOTA on the ballot to win.
4.  You have an undeniable conflict of interest over the meaning of NOTA in this election.  Whether it can be considered just a "symbolic gesture" as you stated to members in your urging of them to vote, or whether voting NOTA invalidates votes, as you inaccurately claimed to members last week, or what it means at all ? presents a unequivocal conflict of interest for you, exclusively on the EC, in this election.
5.  You raised no issue about EC members signing on to the appeal during the meeting when the appeal was discussed and a decision was reached.  You raise the issue for the first time 4 days after the fact.

Now, if you seriously think you can invalidate the decision of last week?s EC meeting because you?ve come back from vacation and have thought up a new argument, you need to think again.  

There is no dispute that you recused yourself from last week's decision (as you should have, since you are a candidate in this election facing NOTA).  There is no new opportunity to ?do-over? that decision and now interject yourself into the decision.  We can?t now pretend that last week?s meeting and decision didn?t happen.  At least I won?t.

The 4 members of the EC who are not candidates in this election may take your suggestions under advisement, but you were not (and are not) a party to the decision.  You are a candidate in the election who must defeat NOTA to be re-elected.

Robin





> On Aug 28, 2016, at 12:56 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Without now going in detail about the differences in your various
> drafts (at quick look it doesn't seem hard to reconcile them, but I
> haven't read them thoroughly and may have missed something), one thing
> I want to do is make as sure as possible is that our decision will be
> formally solid - don't leave any obvious problems someone might be
> able to complain about.
> 
> One issue that needs to be addressed on the record: Robin and Monika
> are appellants themselves and have an apparent conflict of interest.
> They can't act on both sides of the dispute, but should recuse
> themselves from formal decisions directly about the appeal.
> 
> This does not need to have much of practical impact.
> 
> I would suggest doing it as narrowly as possible: only on decisions
> that are explicitly and directly about the appeal.
> 
> In particular that would exclude the EC decision on Wednesday. While
> it was made as a reaction to the appeal, it was not formally about it:
> EC just decided how to proceed with the election and ballots.
> So there's no need to revisit that decision.
> 
> This would affect the official response to the appealants in that
> formally it would not need (or should have) Robin's and Monika's
> approval - but they would be able to reject it as appealants anyway.
> And of course it would make no sense for us to send a letter that we
> know in advance would be rejected, so for practical purposes we would
> still all need to agree.
> 
> And of course I don't intend to limit discussion in any way, only note
> that formally Robin and Monika would be talking as appealants rather
> than as EC members.
> 
> On the other hand there is no formal need for me to recuse myself from
> the letter. On the contrary: given that the appeal is in effect about
> my acts even though formally addressed to the EC, I should accept
> responsibility of what I've done and acknowledge that I accept EC's
> decision. Recusal on the response letter would be an implied objection
> to it and I should not be doing that.
> 
> To repeat: this would not change the way we do this in practice, I'm
> not trying to add extra complications or delays, but to remove a
> potential cause for someone to question the validity of our decision
> and maybe even try to overthrow it.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
> 




From ncsg  Mon Aug 29 19:55:42 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 19:55:42 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <D996E576-695C-4B9E-8A58-96E68F99F943@ipjustice.org>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9327954E-A9B3-4D77-91E5-B051BA75F62C@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshKZwyzcw3-uWrbCifrVT8=ju74RQv7Mq6GZqqP_ctwnew@mail.gmail.com>
	<AD0C7F7E-728D-4BCE-AD45-19C3F55312AC@ipjustice.org>
	<CADwmshLqNkbv1ZiTWH_W0P5bEW-HgGNs=7EJtb67PZqX9MHc7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<5692E95A-A515-456B-A805-965AB9073F50@ipjustice.org>
	<DB3PR05MB556AB736A90EB2DCE0EF81AF6EF0@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAEux40s=RNN0Ow6u=vRmUJt3ffTz-UD2L37fkHzsqJfNJ+hdSA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160828195653.GA21980@tarvainen.info>
	<D996E576-695C-4B9E-8A58-96E68F99F943@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20160829165542.GB1058@tarvainen.info>

Dear Robin,

You misunderstood my intent.

I have no intention of attempting to change the decision EC made
last Wednesday - I didn't think there was any disagreement about that.

I did recuse myself from that decision as it materially affected how
the election is done, and I have a stake in that. And I absolutely
agree that Chair should also defeat NOTA to be elected - if you read
what I wrote about the letter I specifically raised this point
(although I don't recall it being explicitly mentioned during the
call, but I took it for granted).

But while the substance was decided on that call, the text of the
response letter was not. And it is not a mere secretarial task, as the
debate of past few days clearly indicates. So it is a new decision,
and I'd need to recuse myself from it separately. Likewise you and
Monika need to reconsider it for your part, but I will let that to
your judgement - I only wanted to point out a potential pitfall and
suggest what I thought was a simple way around it without any
practical consequences. (I seem to recall I did raise the issue
of your and Monika's possible need to recuse yourselves during
the call, but I may misremember. We'd have to check the transcript
or recording to be sure, but I don't think it really matters.)

I don't see the need to recuse myself now: this is not about anything
substantive about the election process anymore, only about how the
decision made should be communicated to the appellants.

Yet I have no intent of vetoing any letter other EC members agree on.

I would not be complaining if you'd done it while I was away, nor do I
intend stop you if you all now agree on the text.

I only wanted to add myself to the signatories in order to express my
acceptance of the decision, to indicate that I accept the blame,
and wanted to make it clear it in the letter.

I don't understand how you can see harm in that.

But, in order to move forward: let's just try to agree on the text.

As I said, I do not intend to veto it. If you all agree on a different
text without my signature, I won't insist on it. Regardless of whether
you and Monika recuse yourselves: your acceptance is required anyway
(although your signatures won't be if you do).

I must confess I find it strange if appellants would *not* want me
to indicate my acceptance of the letter, though.

Sincerely,

Tapani


On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 07:43:57AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:

> Sorry Tapani, you are still very wrong.  And you are no position to change clear facts and re-write history, even though you seem to be suffering from "sour grapes" in your attempt to do so.
> 
> These facts remain unchanged:
> 
> 1.  The EC held a meeting last week to decide on the members' appeal and we came to a decision in that meeting.
> 2.  You recused yourself from that decision because of your conflict of interest in this election.  
> 3.  You are the only member of the EC who is also a candidate in this election and you must defeat NOTA on the ballot to win.
> 4.  You have an undeniable conflict of interest over the meaning of NOTA in this election.  Whether it can be considered just a "symbolic gesture" as you stated to members in your urging of them to vote, or whether voting NOTA invalidates votes, as you inaccurately claimed to members last week, or what it means at all ? presents a unequivocal conflict of interest for you, exclusively on the EC, in this election.
> 5.  You raised no issue about EC members signing on to the appeal during the meeting when the appeal was discussed and a decision was reached.  You raise the issue for the first time 4 days after the fact.
> 
> Now, if you seriously think you can invalidate the decision of last week?s EC meeting because you?ve come back from vacation and have thought up a new argument, you need to think again.  
> 
> There is no dispute that you recused yourself from last week's decision (as you should have, since you are a candidate in this election facing NOTA).  There is no new opportunity to ?do-over? that decision and now interject yourself into the decision.  We can?t now pretend that last week?s meeting and decision didn?t happen.  At least I won?t.
> 
> The 4 members of the EC who are not candidates in this election may take your suggestions under advisement, but you were not (and are not) a party to the decision.  You are a candidate in the election who must defeat NOTA to be re-elected.
> 
> Robin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > On Aug 28, 2016, at 12:56 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > Without now going in detail about the differences in your various
> > drafts (at quick look it doesn't seem hard to reconcile them, but I
> > haven't read them thoroughly and may have missed something), one thing
> > I want to do is make as sure as possible is that our decision will be
> > formally solid - don't leave any obvious problems someone might be
> > able to complain about.
> > 
> > One issue that needs to be addressed on the record: Robin and Monika
> > are appellants themselves and have an apparent conflict of interest.
> > They can't act on both sides of the dispute, but should recuse
> > themselves from formal decisions directly about the appeal.
> > 
> > This does not need to have much of practical impact.
> > 
> > I would suggest doing it as narrowly as possible: only on decisions
> > that are explicitly and directly about the appeal.
> > 
> > In particular that would exclude the EC decision on Wednesday. While
> > it was made as a reaction to the appeal, it was not formally about it:
> > EC just decided how to proceed with the election and ballots.
> > So there's no need to revisit that decision.
> > 
> > This would affect the official response to the appealants in that
> > formally it would not need (or should have) Robin's and Monika's
> > approval - but they would be able to reject it as appealants anyway.
> > And of course it would make no sense for us to send a letter that we
> > know in advance would be rejected, so for practical purposes we would
> > still all need to agree.
> > 
> > And of course I don't intend to limit discussion in any way, only note
> > that formally Robin and Monika would be talking as appealants rather
> > than as EC members.
> > 
> > On the other hand there is no formal need for me to recuse myself from
> > the letter. On the contrary: given that the appeal is in effect about
> > my acts even though formally addressed to the EC, I should accept
> > responsibility of what I've done and acknowledge that I accept EC's
> > decision. Recusal on the response letter would be an implied objection
> > to it and I should not be doing that.
> > 
> > To repeat: this would not change the way we do this in practice, I'm
> > not trying to add extra complications or delays, but to remove a
> > potential cause for someone to question the validity of our decision
> > and maybe even try to overthrow it.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > EC-NCSG mailing list
> > EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
> > 



From robin  Tue Aug 30 17:57:20 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 07:57:20 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40sBfjXXdUekaKnm08fvr=5ksNAmbtw4V3YxYeiQ_XvfFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160829060740.GA27333@tarvainen.info>
	<DB3PR05MB55611FFB48402E102AEDDBAF6E10@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAEux40sBfjXXdUekaKnm08fvr=5ksNAmbtw4V3YxYeiQ_XvfFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DB8D0A72-77DC-476E-993E-9DAE2D70EEB3@ipjustice.org>

Dear Colleagues:

I believe we are close.  There was concern among appellants that yesterday?s proposal to change the word ?resolved? to ?withdrawn? at the end of the letter could be interpreted to mean that there was no valid appeal and that there would be no proper documentation of the appeal on the website as required by the charter.  Therefore, if we go back to using the word ?resolved? instead of ?withdrawn?, as we agreed to last Friday, and agree to document the appeal properly as required by the charter, I think we can find universal agreement on the following text.  I?ve made only a two minor edits to Tapani?s proposed text (in red below).  Thank you.

Best,
Robin
________________

PROPOSED FINAL TEXT:

Dear Appellants:

This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August
2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to
continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.

In fact the EC did not make such a decision: it was an unilateral act
of the Chair, which the EC did not approve and decided to override in
its emergency meeting on August 24.  The Chair, by signing this letter,
accepts his responsibility and the EC's chastisement of his hasty
action.

In its meeting the EC discussed the the appeal and considered possible
options in response.  In that meeting, the EC decided to propose a
compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the
ongoing election as requested.

Specifically, the EC decided to continue with the ongoing annual
election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already
sent to members, but with the understanding that voting simultaneously
for "None of the Above" and one or two candidates for council is
valid, and that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection,
which means that those candidates who receive less votes than "None of
the Above" (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed not elected to the
GNSO Council in this year?s the election.

We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation
and confusion on the ballot.

In the unlikely event that the GNSO seats are left unfilled after the
election, the EC will follow the procedures described in the charter to
fill that seat.

We regret the confusion caused and will endeavour to fix any remaining
concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.

Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly withdrawn
resolved. Thank you.

Signed,
Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group
______________________


> On Aug 29, 2016, at 4:04 AM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:
> 
> As Monika, has endorsed, if its okay with Joan and Robin then good to go, its better we clear this.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> On 29 August 2016 at 06:29, Zalnieriute, Monika <Monika.Zalnieriute at eui.eu <mailto:Monika.Zalnieriute at eui.eu>> wrote:
> Dear Tapani and all,
> 
> 
> Tapani, thank You very much for drafting this. I think its very nice of You to accept responsibility, and also clearly state this in the letter to the appellants.
> 
> 
> I think this should get us going, and get this matter solved:)
> 
> 
> Others agreeing, I am happy to send this letter,
> 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> 
> Monika
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> 
> Dr. Monika Zalnieriute
> 
> 
> Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au <http://law.unimelb.edu.au/> I
> Center for Media, Data and Society I Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu <http://cmds.ceu.edu/> I
> Executive Committee I Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org <http://icann.org/> I
> 
> Z E P H I R O : Progressive Platform for Human Rights I zephiroplatform.org <http://zephiroplatform.org/> I
> 
> Centre for Internet & Human Rights I European University Viadrina I cihr.eu <http://cihr.eu/> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: EC-NCSG <ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org <mailto:ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org>> on behalf of Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info <mailto:ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>>
> Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 6:07 AM
> To: ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org <mailto:ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: Re: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
>  
> Dear all,
> 
> Now I've read the discussion and the various drafts of the letter.
> A few points:
> 
> First, it is important to be precise, in particular the point about
> what happens in case of tie with NOTA, but I'm happy with any wording
> that's unambiguous.
> 
> Second, I think it would be useful to explicitly state that voting for
> NotA along with one or two candidates is allowed, rather than leaving
> it implied.
> 
> Third, I don't want to leave the impression that the Chair would not
> face a possible rejection, so in
> 
> "with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces
> possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
> GNSO Council [...]"
> 
> I would drop the words "with respect to the election
> for GNSO Council".
> 
> Fourth, I'm fine with calling this a compromise solution.
> 
> Fifth, I have one major problem with the letter: it does not clearly
> point the blame to where it belongs, namely me. I want to add text
> explicitly blaming me for acting on my own without EC's consensus.
> 
> So, here's my suggestion for the letter:
> 
> 
> "This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
> members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August
> 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to
> continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
> 
> In fact the EC did not make such a decision: it was an unilateral act
> of the Chair, which the EC did not approve and decided to override in
> its emergency meeting on August 24. The Chair, by signing this letter,
> accepts his responsibility and the EC's chastisement of his hasty
> action.
> 
> In its meeting the EC discussed the the appeal and considered possible
> options in response. In that meeting, the EC decided to propose a
> compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the
> ongoing election as requested.
> 
> Specifically, the EC decided to continue with the ongoing annual
> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already
> sent to members, but with the understanding that voting simultaneously
> for "None of the Above" and one or two candidates for council is
> valid, and that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection,
> which means that those candidates who receive less votes than "None of
> the Above" (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed not elected to the
> GNSO Council in this year?s election.
> 
> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
> it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
> election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation
> and confusion on the ballot.
> 
> In the unlikely event that the GNSO seats are left unfilled after the
> election, the EC will follow the procedures described in the charter to
> fill that seat.
> 
> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavour to fix any remaining
> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
> 
> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
> proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly
> withdrawn. Thank you.
> 
> Signed,
> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group"
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
>  
> 
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160830/816d0d79/attachment-0001.html>


From ncsg  Tue Aug 30 19:06:50 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 19:06:50 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <DB8D0A72-77DC-476E-993E-9DAE2D70EEB3@ipjustice.org>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160829060740.GA27333@tarvainen.info>
	<DB3PR05MB55611FFB48402E102AEDDBAF6E10@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAEux40sBfjXXdUekaKnm08fvr=5ksNAmbtw4V3YxYeiQ_XvfFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<DB8D0A72-77DC-476E-993E-9DAE2D70EEB3@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20160830160650.GA4286@roller.tarvainen.info>

Dear Robin,

I have no objections to your changes. The "withdrawn" was just
leftover from your original version I used when I started writing
mine, and your other edit is an obvious consistency fix.

I would like to suggest another such fix. As it's theoretically
possible that several seats go unfilled, we should use plural
in the paragraph dealing with that possibility, like this:

"In the unlikely event that any seats are left unfilled after the
election, the EC will follow the procedures described in the charter
to fill such seats."

I also dropped "GNSO" as an unfilled Chair seat would also obviously
be filled as per the charter.

(This doesn't really matter and I don't think it's important, but at
this point fixing it doesn't take take any extra time so why not.)

So here's my (hopefully really final) proposal:

"Dear Appellants:

This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August
2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to
continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.

In fact the EC did not make such a decision: it was an unilateral act
of the Chair, which the EC did not approve and decided to override in
its emergency meeting on August 24.  The Chair, by signing this letter,
accepts his responsibility and the EC's chastisement of his hasty
action.

In its meeting the EC discussed the the appeal and considered possible
options in response.  In that meeting, the EC decided to propose a
compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the
ongoing election as requested.

Specifically, the EC decided to continue with the ongoing annual
election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already
sent to members, but with the understanding that voting simultaneously
for "None of the Above" and one or two candidates for council is
valid, and that every candidate on the ballot faces possible
rejection, which means that those candidates who receive less votes
than "None of the Above" (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed not
elected in the election.

We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation
and confusion on the ballot.

In the unlikely event that any seats are left unfilled after the
election, the EC will follow the procedures described in the charter
to fill such seats.

We regret the confusion caused and will endeavour to fix any remaining
concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.

Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly
resolved. Thank you.

Signed,
Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group"

--
Tapani Tarvainen



From ncsg  Tue Aug 30 19:11:06 2016
From: ncsg (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 19:11:06 +0300
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <20160830160650.GA4286@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160829060740.GA27333@tarvainen.info>
	<DB3PR05MB55611FFB48402E102AEDDBAF6E10@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAEux40sBfjXXdUekaKnm08fvr=5ksNAmbtw4V3YxYeiQ_XvfFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<DB8D0A72-77DC-476E-993E-9DAE2D70EEB3@ipjustice.org>
	<20160830160650.GA4286@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <20160830161106.GB4286@roller.tarvainen.info>

One more thing: if we agree on the text, I propose we ask Joan to send
it to the appellants on behalf of the EC. I believe we've had an
informal understanding of that already but having a decision on record
would be nice.

Tapani

On Aug 30 19:06, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote:

> Dear Robin,
> 
> I have no objections to your changes. The "withdrawn" was just
> leftover from your original version I used when I started writing
> mine, and your other edit is an obvious consistency fix.
> 
> I would like to suggest another such fix. As it's theoretically
> possible that several seats go unfilled, we should use plural
> in the paragraph dealing with that possibility, like this:
> 
> "In the unlikely event that any seats are left unfilled after the
> election, the EC will follow the procedures described in the charter
> to fill such seats."
> 
> I also dropped "GNSO" as an unfilled Chair seat would also obviously
> be filled as per the charter.
> 
> (This doesn't really matter and I don't think it's important, but at
> this point fixing it doesn't take take any extra time so why not.)
> 
> So here's my (hopefully really final) proposal:
> 
> "Dear Appellants:
> 
> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
> members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August
> 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to
> continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
> 
> In fact the EC did not make such a decision: it was an unilateral act
> of the Chair, which the EC did not approve and decided to override in
> its emergency meeting on August 24.  The Chair, by signing this letter,
> accepts his responsibility and the EC's chastisement of his hasty
> action.
> 
> In its meeting the EC discussed the the appeal and considered possible
> options in response.  In that meeting, the EC decided to propose a
> compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the
> ongoing election as requested.
> 
> Specifically, the EC decided to continue with the ongoing annual
> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already
> sent to members, but with the understanding that voting simultaneously
> for "None of the Above" and one or two candidates for council is
> valid, and that every candidate on the ballot faces possible
> rejection, which means that those candidates who receive less votes
> than "None of the Above" (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed not
> elected in the election.
> 
> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
> it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
> election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation
> and confusion on the ballot.
> 
> In the unlikely event that any seats are left unfilled after the
> election, the EC will follow the procedures described in the charter
> to fill such seats.
> 
> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavour to fix any remaining
> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
> 
> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
> proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly
> resolved. Thank you.
> 
> Signed,
> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group"
> 
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen



From robin  Tue Aug 30 20:43:29 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 10:43:29 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <20160830160650.GA4286@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160829060740.GA27333@tarvainen.info>
	<DB3PR05MB55611FFB48402E102AEDDBAF6E10@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAEux40sBfjXXdUekaKnm08fvr=5ksNAmbtw4V3YxYeiQ_XvfFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<DB8D0A72-77DC-476E-993E-9DAE2D70EEB3@ipjustice.org>
	<20160830160650.GA4286@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <9A1F7BCB-245A-45B4-A0B2-7DC0F089E5DD@ipjustice.org>

Thanks, Tapani and all, this looks good to me.  

Best,
Robin

> On Aug 30, 2016, at 9:06 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> Dear Robin,
> 
> I have no objections to your changes. The "withdrawn" was just
> leftover from your original version I used when I started writing
> mine, and your other edit is an obvious consistency fix.
> 
> I would like to suggest another such fix. As it's theoretically
> possible that several seats go unfilled, we should use plural
> in the paragraph dealing with that possibility, like this:
> 
> "In the unlikely event that any seats are left unfilled after the
> election, the EC will follow the procedures described in the charter
> to fill such seats."
> 
> I also dropped "GNSO" as an unfilled Chair seat would also obviously
> be filled as per the charter.
> 
> (This doesn't really matter and I don't think it's important, but at
> this point fixing it doesn't take take any extra time so why not.)
> 
> So here's my (hopefully really final) proposal:
> 
> "Dear Appellants:
> 
> This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
> members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August
> 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to
> continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
> 
> In fact the EC did not make such a decision: it was an unilateral act
> of the Chair, which the EC did not approve and decided to override in
> its emergency meeting on August 24.  The Chair, by signing this letter,
> accepts his responsibility and the EC's chastisement of his hasty
> action.
> 
> In its meeting the EC discussed the the appeal and considered possible
> options in response.  In that meeting, the EC decided to propose a
> compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the
> ongoing election as requested.
> 
> Specifically, the EC decided to continue with the ongoing annual
> election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already
> sent to members, but with the understanding that voting simultaneously
> for "None of the Above" and one or two candidates for council is
> valid, and that every candidate on the ballot faces possible
> rejection, which means that those candidates who receive less votes
> than "None of the Above" (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed not
> elected in the election.
> 
> We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
> it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
> election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation
> and confusion on the ballot.
> 
> In the unlikely event that any seats are left unfilled after the
> election, the EC will follow the procedures described in the charter
> to fill such seats.
> 
> We regret the confusion caused and will endeavour to fix any remaining
> concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
> 
> Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
> proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly
> resolved. Thank you.
> 
> Signed,
> Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group"
> 
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
> 




From joankerr  Tue Aug 30 20:58:12 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 13:58:12 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents
In-Reply-To: <9A1F7BCB-245A-45B4-A0B2-7DC0F089E5DD@ipjustice.org>
References: <CADwmshLaT6jnyO44Gy1ormEbkqKK1-2B4gP+1DdxpjJxWaObZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20160829060740.GA27333@tarvainen.info>
	<DB3PR05MB55611FFB48402E102AEDDBAF6E10@DB3PR05MB556.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
	<CAEux40sBfjXXdUekaKnm08fvr=5ksNAmbtw4V3YxYeiQ_XvfFQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<DB8D0A72-77DC-476E-993E-9DAE2D70EEB3@ipjustice.org>
	<20160830160650.GA4286@roller.tarvainen.info>
	<9A1F7BCB-245A-45B4-A0B2-7DC0F089E5DD@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CADwmshL7Cfe+9VZh3K-FA_877-ArmD4nFAn+tNhqpWGd=pP2qQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Everyone,

As I understand it we are agreeing to the text below.  I have highlighted
the suggestions in yellow.  If we are all in agreement I will send it to
the list on behalf of the EC.  I realize in Monika's case it could take
time.  She had agreed earlier with the exception of the highlighted
suggestions.

See below;

Thanks
Joan


"This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members
of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.

*In fact, the EC did not make such a decision: it was an unilateral act of
the Chair, which the EC did not approve and decided to override in its
emergency meeting on August 24. The Chair, by signing this letter, accepts
his responsibility and the EC's chastisement of his hasty action.*

In its meeting the EC discussed the appeal and considered possible options
in response. In that meeting, the EC decided to propose a compromise
solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the
ongoing election as requested.

Specifically, the EC decided to continue with the ongoing annual election
as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members,
but with the understanding that voting simultaneously
for "None of the Above" and one or two candidates for council is valid, and
that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means
that those *candidates who receive less votes than "None of the Above"
(NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed not elected to the GNSO Council in
this year?s election.*

We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is
a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as
planned and still satisfy concerns about representation
and confusion on the ballot.

In the unlikely event that the GNSO seats are left unfilled after the
election, the EC will follow the procedures described in the charter as
several seats may theoretically be left unfilled.(Tapani?s suggestion)

We regret the confusion caused and will endeavour to fix any remaining
concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.

Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is
acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly resolved. (Robin?s
suggestion)

Thank you.

Signed,

Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group







On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Thanks, Tapani and all, this looks good to me.
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
> > On Aug 30, 2016, at 9:06 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <
> ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Robin,
> >
> > I have no objections to your changes. The "withdrawn" was just
> > leftover from your original version I used when I started writing
> > mine, and your other edit is an obvious consistency fix.
> >
> > I would like to suggest another such fix. As it's theoretically
> > possible that several seats go unfilled, we should use plural
> > in the paragraph dealing with that possibility, like this:
> >
> > "In the unlikely event that any seats are left unfilled after the
> > election, the EC will follow the procedures described in the charter
> > to fill such seats."
> >
> > I also dropped "GNSO" as an unfilled Chair seat would also obviously
> > be filled as per the charter.
> >
> > (This doesn't really matter and I don't think it's important, but at
> > this point fixing it doesn't take take any extra time so why not.)
> >
> > So here's my (hopefully really final) proposal:
> >
> > "Dear Appellants:
> >
> > This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21
> > members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August
> > 2016 regarding the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to
> > continue with the ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.
> >
> > In fact the EC did not make such a decision: it was an unilateral act
> > of the Chair, which the EC did not approve and decided to override in
> > its emergency meeting on August 24.  The Chair, by signing this letter,
> > accepts his responsibility and the EC's chastisement of his hasty
> > action.
> >
> > In its meeting the EC discussed the the appeal and considered possible
> > options in response.  In that meeting, the EC decided to propose a
> > compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the
> > ongoing election as requested.
> >
> > Specifically, the EC decided to continue with the ongoing annual
> > election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already
> > sent to members, but with the understanding that voting simultaneously
> > for "None of the Above" and one or two candidates for council is
> > valid, and that every candidate on the ballot faces possible
> > rejection, which means that those candidates who receive less votes
> > than "None of the Above" (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed not
> > elected in the election.
> >
> > We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe
> > it is a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing
> > election as planned and still satisfy concerns about representation
> > and confusion on the ballot.
> >
> > In the unlikely event that any seats are left unfilled after the
> > election, the EC will follow the procedures described in the charter
> > to fill such seats.
> >
> > We regret the confusion caused and will endeavour to fix any remaining
> > concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.
> >
> > Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise
> > proposal is acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly
> > resolved. Thank you.
> >
> > Signed,
> > Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group"
> >
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > EC-NCSG mailing list
> > EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160830/b6170694/attachment-0001.html>


From encantarg  Tue Aug 30 22:49:56 2016
From: encantarg (Form Notifications)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 19:49:56 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Membership Application: Form submissions detected
Message-ID: <047d7b15aefbff3f9c053b4f4859@google.com>



<p><i>Form Notifications</i> (a Google Forms add-on) has detected that the  
form
titled <a  
href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uPzS7nxQkGgndirN8JM_E067DXz42uXWKcBClxAd4KY/edit"><b>  
NCSG Membership Application</b></a> has received
195 responses so far.</p>

<p><a  
href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cRLoUkoLC_Kelf7440HBGLxpaMThrRMrSuVrBWqM2bo/edit?usp=drivesdk">Response  
sheet</a></p>
<p><a  
href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1uPzS7nxQkGgndirN8JM_E067DXz42uXWKcBClxAd4KY/viewanalytics">Summary  
of form responses</a></p>

<p>You are receiving this email because an editor of this form configured
<i>Form Notifications</i> to alert you every time this form receives
<b>1</b> responses.</p>

<p>To change this setting, or to stop receiving these notifications, have  
the
form owner or editors open the form and adjust the <i>Form Notifications</i>
add-on configuration via the "Configure notifications" menu item.</p>

<hr>

<p style="font-size:80%">This automatic message was sent to you via the  
<i>Form
Notifications</i> add-on for Google Forms.
Form Notifications was created as an sample add-on, and is meant for  
demonstration purposes only. It should not be used for complex or important  
workflows. The number of notifications this add-on produces are limited by  
the owner&#39;s available email quota; it will not send email notifications  
if the owner&#39;s daily email quota has been exceeded. Collaborators using  
this add-on on the same form will be able to adjust the notification  
settings, but will not be able to disable the notification triggers set by  
other collaborators.</p>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160830/ea4ce1b9/attachment.html>


From maryam.bakoshi  Tue Aug 30 23:58:15 2016
From: maryam.bakoshi (Maryam Bakoshi)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 20:58:15 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Recording and Transcript now available
Message-ID: <299D2008-A2C5-4AB5-817D-33250282259B@icann.org>

Dear all,

Recording and transcript of the meetings held 19 August 2016 and 24 August 2016, is now available at: https://community.icann.org/x/fQ8nAw

Many thanks,

--
Maryam Bakoshi
Secretariat Support ? NCSG/NCUC/NPOC
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
S: maryam.bakoshi.icann
T: +44 7737698036

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160830/6ab1cbb2/attachment.html>


From joankerr  Wed Aug 31 19:18:31 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:18:31 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Test
Message-ID: <CADwmsh+mFAiKarazSESy99nfLuxtn-R-ao5zPfEDW8XF2w9JCQ@mail.gmail.com>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160831/9aef7490/attachment.html>


From pileleji  Wed Aug 31 19:20:09 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 16:20:09 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Test
In-Reply-To: <CADwmsh+mFAiKarazSESy99nfLuxtn-R-ao5zPfEDW8XF2w9JCQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADwmsh+mFAiKarazSESy99nfLuxtn-R-ao5zPfEDW8XF2w9JCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEux40taYD7ny7zv9V6Ta0X9dtJVKEoXKjziEjoBpAUHL7764Q@mail.gmail.com>

received Joan.

Curious why the test?

On 31 August 2016 at 16:18, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
>


-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160831/d3ae80bb/attachment.html>


From joankerr  Wed Aug 31 19:22:48 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:22:48 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Test
In-Reply-To: <CAEux40taYD7ny7zv9V6Ta0X9dtJVKEoXKjziEjoBpAUHL7764Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADwmsh+mFAiKarazSESy99nfLuxtn-R-ao5zPfEDW8XF2w9JCQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40taYD7ny7zv9V6Ta0X9dtJVKEoXKjziEjoBpAUHL7764Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADwmshJ4dd_92O16KMNy3MdMqSOsm0qRXwaPbJkbOsQmyesoSg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Poncelet,

I am not receiving my emails from the NCSG EC list.  So I thought I would
test it.
Joan

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm> wrote:

> received Joan.
>
> Curious why the test?
>
> On 31 August 2016 at 16:18, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240
> Fax:(220) 4390793
> Cell:(220) 9912508
> Skype: pons_utd
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
> <http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
> <http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160831/38e3b6ed/attachment-0001.html>


From joankerr  Wed Aug 31 19:07:39 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 12:07:39 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the election process
In-Reply-To: <6dc57d7b-b327-6718-41b7-0491ad5e2008@acm.org>
References: <6dc57d7b-b327-6718-41b7-0491ad5e2008@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CADwmshKJ8hpEbWRx1ds1iBOKjE736036OibKhVyLOq9c9UNCGA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Avri Doria

On behalf of the NCSG EC's, I am responding to the Letter of Appeal filed
August 23rd, 2016, which is attached and included below.

Kindly note, I have taken the opportunity copy all the appellants who are
listed in the Letter of Appeal.

Regards,
Joan Kerr on behalf of the NSCG EC

*NCSG EC Response to Letter of Appeal*

Dear Appellants:

This email is in response to the appeal filed by the group of 21 members of
the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on 23 August 2016 regarding
the decision of the NCSG Executive Committee (EC) to continue with the
ongoing annual election using the existing ballots.

*In fact** the EC did not make such a decision: it was an unilateral act of
the Chair, which the EC did not approve and decided to override in its
emergency meeting on August 24. The Chair, by signing this letter, accepts
his responsibility and the EC's chastisement of his hasty action.*

In its meeting the EC discussed the the appeal and considered possible
options in response. In that meeting, the EC decided to propose a
compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the ongoing
election as requested.

Specifically, the EC decided to continue with the ongoing annual election
as originally planned, using the existing ballots already sent to members,
but with the understanding that voting simultaneously for "None of the
Above" and one or two candidates for council is valid, and that every
candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection, which means that those
candidates who receive less votes than "None of the Above" (NOTA) on the
ballot shall be deemed not elected in the election.

We understand that this compromise is not perfect, however we believe it is
a solution which will allow us to go forward with the existing election as
planned and still satisfy concerns about representation and confusion on
the ballot.

In the unlikely event that any seats are left unfilled after the election,
the EC will follow the procedures described in the charter to fill such
seats.

We regret the confusion caused and will endeavour to fix any remaining
concerns before the ballot is sent in next year's annual election.

Please indicate at your earliest convenience if this compromise proposal is
acceptable to you and that your appeal is accordingly

resolved. Thank you.

Signed,

Executive Committee of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 10:44 AM, avri doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> NCSG colleagues,
>
> *Pursuant to Section 2.4.2.1 of NCSG?s Charter, the NCSG Members
> signed***in the enclosed***hereby initiate an appeal of the NCSG EC
> decision to refuse to fix the contested ballots and properly clarify the
> election process before proceeding.*
>
> Thank you,
>
> Avri Doria
>
> on behalf of the 21 members who signed the appeal*
> ***
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160831/cf0d6ddf/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG EC response to Appellants.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 32296 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160831/cf0d6ddf/attachment-0001.pdf>


From robin  Wed Aug 31 20:37:29 2016
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 10:37:29 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Test
In-Reply-To: <CADwmshJ4dd_92O16KMNy3MdMqSOsm0qRXwaPbJkbOsQmyesoSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADwmsh+mFAiKarazSESy99nfLuxtn-R-ao5zPfEDW8XF2w9JCQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40taYD7ny7zv9V6Ta0X9dtJVKEoXKjziEjoBpAUHL7764Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADwmshJ4dd_92O16KMNy3MdMqSOsm0qRXwaPbJkbOsQmyesoSg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87ED37AC-609F-4E65-AD05-DEF2A8CA848C@ipjustice.org>

Hi Joan,

That email was held for having too many recipients by the mail server, but I was able to send it through.

Thanks,
Robin

> On Aug 31, 2016, at 9:22 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG> wrote:
> 
> Hi Poncelet,
> 
> I am not receiving my emails from the NCSG EC list.  So I thought I would test it.
> Joan
> 
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm <mailto:pileleji at ymca.gm>> wrote:
> received Joan.
> 
> Curious why the test?
> 
> On 31 August 2016 at 16:18, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
> Coordinator
> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
> MDI Road Kanifing South
> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
> The Gambia, West Africa
> Tel: (220) 4370240 <tel:%28220%29%204370240>
> Fax:(220) 4390793 <tel:%28220%29%204390793>
> Cell:(220) 9912508 <tel:%28220%29%209912508>
> Skype: pons_utd
> www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>
> http://jokkolabs.net/en/ <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>
> www.waigf.org <http://www.waigf.org/>
> www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm/>
> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
> http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>
> www.diplointernetgovernance.org <http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160831/92476a4d/attachment.html>


From pileleji  Wed Aug 31 20:44:08 2016
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 17:44:08 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Test
In-Reply-To: <87ED37AC-609F-4E65-AD05-DEF2A8CA848C@ipjustice.org>
References: <CADwmsh+mFAiKarazSESy99nfLuxtn-R-ao5zPfEDW8XF2w9JCQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40taYD7ny7zv9V6Ta0X9dtJVKEoXKjziEjoBpAUHL7764Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADwmshJ4dd_92O16KMNy3MdMqSOsm0qRXwaPbJkbOsQmyesoSg@mail.gmail.com>
	<87ED37AC-609F-4E65-AD05-DEF2A8CA848C@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAEux40t82UL0=5DSemmqqTuL=ydGvx98FVxboM7oSKAs5UZ7LQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Robin,

Appreciated, so we can get back to real  NCSG work

Peace

Poncelet

On 31 August 2016 at 17:37, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Hi Joan,
>
> That email was held for having too many recipients by the mail server, but
> I was able to send it through.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> On Aug 31, 2016, at 9:22 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG
> <joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Poncelet,
>
> I am not receiving my emails from the NCSG EC list.  So I thought I would
> test it.
> Joan
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm>
> wrote:
>
>> received Joan.
>>
>> Curious why the test?
>>
>> On 31 August 2016 at 16:18, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>> Coordinator
>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>> The Gambia, West Africa
>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>> Skype: pons_utd
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
>> <http://www.waigf.org/>www,insistglobal.com
>> <http://www.itag.gm/>www.npoc.org
>> <http://www.npoc.org/>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>


-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd






*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160831/a8f8f4a8/attachment.html>


From joankerr  Wed Aug 31 20:44:39 2016
From: joankerr (Joan Kerr)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 13:44:39 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Test
In-Reply-To: <87ED37AC-609F-4E65-AD05-DEF2A8CA848C@ipjustice.org>
References: <CADwmsh+mFAiKarazSESy99nfLuxtn-R-ao5zPfEDW8XF2w9JCQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEux40taYD7ny7zv9V6Ta0X9dtJVKEoXKjziEjoBpAUHL7764Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADwmshJ4dd_92O16KMNy3MdMqSOsm0qRXwaPbJkbOsQmyesoSg@mail.gmail.com>
	<87ED37AC-609F-4E65-AD05-DEF2A8CA848C@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CADwmshL4BD3deEi5fe=xM8Tm01XKvyJnx0-JKwbwFZrbTatsDg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Robin,

Makes sense.
Joan

On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Hi Joan,
>
> That email was held for having too many recipients by the mail server, but
> I was able to send it through.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> On Aug 31, 2016, at 9:22 AM, Joan Kerr <joankerr at FBSC.ORG
> <joankerr at fbsc.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi Poncelet,
>
> I am not receiving my emails from the NCSG EC list.  So I thought I would
> test it.
> Joan
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Poncelet Ileleji <pileleji at ymca.gm>
> wrote:
>
>> received Joan.
>>
>> Curious why the test?
>>
>> On 31 August 2016 at 16:18, Joan Kerr <joankerr at fbsc.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
>> Coordinator
>> The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
>> MDI Road Kanifing South
>> P. O. Box 421 Banjul
>> The Gambia, West Africa
>> Tel: (220) 4370240
>> Fax:(220) 4390793
>> Cell:(220) 9912508
>> Skype: pons_utd
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm/>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
>> <http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
>> <http://www.waigf.org/>www,insistglobal.com
>> <http://www.itag.gm/>www.npoc.org
>> <http://www.npoc.org/>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
>> <http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20160831/87aecf6d/attachment.html>