[EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents

[Joan Kerr]

Tapani,

Thanks for sending this.  Thanks Poncelet and Monika for your responses

Robin,

If you are in agreement, I would like to post this today.
Please let me know.
Cheers,
Joan




On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 2:07 AM, Tapani Tarvainen <
ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160829/b35bb4ed/attachment-0001.html>