[EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents

Sat Aug 27 22:37:36 EEST 2016

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>