[EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance

Fri Aug 26 21:34:36 EEST 2016

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>