[EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents

[Joan Kerr]

Hi All,

This is a great time to take a break and review the agreement we had on the
call.  Perhaps then after reflection, we can address the response directly
and concisely.

Have a great evening.
Joan

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> 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
> <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> 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> 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> 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/f477de4d/attachment-0001.html>