[EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents

[Tapani Tarvainen]

Dear all,

Now I've read the discussion and the various drafts of the letter.
A few points:

First, it is important to be precise, in particular the point about
what happens in case of tie with NOTA, but I'm happy with any wording
that's unambiguous.

Second, I think it would be useful to explicitly state that voting for
NotA along with one or two candidates is allowed, rather than leaving
it implied.

Third, I don't want to leave the impression that the Chair would not
face a possible rejection, so in

"with the understanding that every candidate on the ballot faces
possible rejection, which means that with respect to the election for
GNSO Council [...]"

I would drop the words "with respect to the election
for GNSO Council".

Fourth, I'm fine with calling this a compromise solution.

Fifth, I have one major problem with the letter: it does not clearly
point the blame to where it belongs, namely me. I want to add text
explicitly blaming me for acting on my own without EC's consensus.

So, here's my suggestion for the letter:


"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.

In fact the EC did not make such a decision: it was an unilateral act
of the Chair, which the EC did not approve and decided to override in
its emergency meeting on August 24. The Chair, by signing this letter,
accepts his responsibility and the EC's chastisement of his hasty
action.

In its meeting the EC discussed the the appeal and considered possible
options in response. In that meeting, the EC decided to propose a
compromise solution to the appellants in lieu of suspending the
ongoing election as requested.

Specifically, the EC decided to continue with the ongoing annual
election as originally planned, using the existing ballots already
sent to members, but with the understanding that voting simultaneously
for "None of the Above" and one or two candidates for council is
valid, and that every candidate on the ballot faces possible rejection,
which means that those candidates who receive less votes than "None of
the Above" (NOTA) on the ballot shall be deemed not 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.

In the unlikely event that the GNSO seats are left unfilled after the
election, the EC will follow the procedures described in the charter to
fill that seat.

We regret the confusion caused and will endeavour 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"

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen