[EC-NCSG] Letter to Appellents

[Robin Gross]

Sorry Tapani, you are still very wrong.  And you are no position to change clear facts and re-write history, even though you seem to be suffering from "sour grapes" in your attempt to do so.

These facts remain unchanged:

1.  The EC held a meeting last week to decide on the members' appeal and we came to a decision in that meeting.
2.  You recused yourself from that decision because of your conflict of interest in this election.  
3.  You are the only member of the EC who is also a candidate in this election and you must defeat NOTA on the ballot to win.
4.  You have an undeniable conflict of interest over the meaning of NOTA in this election.  Whether it can be considered just a "symbolic gesture" as you stated to members in your urging of them to vote, or whether voting NOTA invalidates votes, as you inaccurately claimed to members last week, or what it means at all ? presents a unequivocal conflict of interest for you, exclusively on the EC, in this election.
5.  You raised no issue about EC members signing on to the appeal during the meeting when the appeal was discussed and a decision was reached.  You raise the issue for the first time 4 days after the fact.

Now, if you seriously think you can invalidate the decision of last week?s EC meeting because you?ve come back from vacation and have thought up a new argument, you need to think again.  

There is no dispute that you recused yourself from last week's decision (as you should have, since you are a candidate in this election facing NOTA).  There is no new opportunity to ?do-over? that decision and now interject yourself into the decision.  We can?t now pretend that last week?s meeting and decision didn?t happen.  At least I won?t.

The 4 members of the EC who are not candidates in this election may take your suggestions under advisement, but you were not (and are not) a party to the decision.  You are a candidate in the election who must defeat NOTA to be re-elected.

Robin





> On Aug 28, 2016, at 12:56 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Without now going in detail about the differences in your various
> drafts (at quick look it doesn't seem hard to reconcile them, but I
> haven't read them thoroughly and may have missed something), one thing
> I want to do is make as sure as possible is that our decision will be
> formally solid - don't leave any obvious problems someone might be
> able to complain about.
> 
> One issue that needs to be addressed on the record: Robin and Monika
> are appellants themselves and have an apparent conflict of interest.
> They can't act on both sides of the dispute, but should recuse
> themselves from formal decisions directly about the appeal.
> 
> This does not need to have much of practical impact.
> 
> I would suggest doing it as narrowly as possible: only on decisions
> that are explicitly and directly about the appeal.
> 
> In particular that would exclude the EC decision on Wednesday. While
> it was made as a reaction to the appeal, it was not formally about it:
> EC just decided how to proceed with the election and ballots.
> So there's no need to revisit that decision.
> 
> This would affect the official response to the appealants in that
> formally it would not need (or should have) Robin's and Monika's
> approval - but they would be able to reject it as appealants anyway.
> And of course it would make no sense for us to send a letter that we
> know in advance would be rejected, so for practical purposes we would
> still all need to agree.
> 
> And of course I don't intend to limit discussion in any way, only note
> that formally Robin and Monika would be talking as appealants rather
> than as EC members.
> 
> On the other hand there is no formal need for me to recuse myself from
> the letter. On the contrary: given that the appeal is in effect about
> my acts even though formally addressed to the EC, I should accept
> responsibility of what I've done and acknowledge that I accept EC's
> decision. Recusal on the response letter would be an implied objection
> to it and I should not be doing that.
> 
> To repeat: this would not change the way we do this in practice, I'm
> not trying to add extra complications or delays, but to remove a
> potential cause for someone to question the validity of our decision
> and maybe even try to overthrow it.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>