[EC-NCSG] Voting Rules and NoTA Signicance

Fri Aug 26 22:13:49 EEST 2016

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>