[EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance

Fri Aug 26 20:12:43 EEST 2016

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>