[EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents

[Joan Kerr]

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>