From robin at ipjustice.org  Tue Aug  1 01:34:02 2017
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:34:02 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Procedural errors
In-Reply-To: <20170731164733.xuuot7fl3uas55np@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170730151612.w3d5aaowkbpjbaaf@tarvainen.info>
 <CADwmshKDfq67=OeDbycJ=3S466Mg55m5Cb=C8n7rAo49SvsqGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170731160053.gq626irf4vhz2all@tarvainen.info>
 <7DF95579-DDC0-4D71-B444-44C83C2C0CE8@ipjustice.org>
 <20170731164733.xuuot7fl3uas55np@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <1F7B5D16-FC15-46D4-8997-9D665AAC1738@ipjustice.org>

Tapani,

The EC made a decision last week to accept Ed?s resignation and note it for the record.  You do not have the authority to over-turn the unanimous decision of the EC.  Decisions of the EC must be unanimous by all members of the committee.  After the committee has made a unanimous decision, the chair has no authority to ?undo? the decision, as you have attempted to do.  I don?t know what authority you think you have to over-turn a decision of the committee to accept his resignation from the NCSG.

Furthermore, there is nothing unclear or ambiguous about Ed?s resignation.  Surely people don?t have to list every single list they are a member of before their resignation can be accepted.  Ed's written resignation letter very explicitly said to remove him from ?ALL lists? and this unambiguously includes the membership list.  This resignation comes as no surprise as it was long foretold by Ed and others, and your attempts to revive his membership have gone unanswered by him.  The only one this resignation seems ?confused? to is you.

Robin


> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> 
> Hi Robin,
> 
> As I've already noted, Ed's email is not exactly clear, his talk in
> Johannesburg much less so (saying he intends to resign is not same as
> resigning, after all he'd said it many times before).
> 
> And our AOB talk on Friday was confused, in particular we didn't make
> at all clear if we're talking about him leaving just the council or
> his NCSG membership or what. So I want to do it properly.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:22:42AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
>> 
>> I?m not sure where all the confusion and mystery is coming from.  Ed told many people in Joburg he was resigning, including yourself, which we discussed on this list.  Then he sent a resignation email to you on July 11 instructing you to remove him from all lists, which was forwarded to the EC weeks ago.  We don?t need for the EC to ?agree" to his resignation for it to take effect.  We on the EC cannot keep a person on the membership roles when they have explicitly instructed us to remove them.  As Ed had resigned in writing on 11 July, Tatiana?s appointment should have been presented as a replacement instead of alternate to begin with.  Let?s just change it to replacement and get on our work.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Robin
>> 
>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Joan,
>>> 
>>> Thank you, but first we'll have to work out Ed's removal properly,
>>> and we do need a new decision, by current EC.
>>> 
>>> What we could and probably should do is decide that Tatiana will
>>> be appointed as replacement as soon as Ed's removal from the council
>>> is formally confirmed, so there'd be no danger of a gap in our
>>> council represenation.
>>> 
>>> Tapani
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:24:06AM -0400, Joan Kerr (joankerr at fbsc.org) wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Tapani, All
>>>> 
>>>> I am responding to this email, because I was part of the meeting on
>>>> Friday.  I support Tatiana as replacement instead of alternate.
>>>> 
>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>>> Virus-free.
>>>> www.avast.com
>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>> 
>>>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <
>>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Staff has pointed out that we made a procedural error in our Friday
>>>>> meeting:
>>>>> two decisions that are in conflict with each other, both cannot be let
>>>>> stand.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Specifically, like proxy, temporary alternate can only be appointed for
>>>>> a councillor who's formally still in office. When a councillor resigns,
>>>>> proxy assignments and temporary alternate appointments are nullified,
>>>>> and a temporary replacement (different from alternate) should be appointed.
>>>>> So if we deem Ed to have resigned, Tatiana's appointment is void.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This should not be hard to fix, but as time is short, I am going to let
>>>>> Tatiana's appointment stand as it is and set our decision regarding Ed
>>>>> aside, or rather consider the latter to be mere discussion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The practical reason for this is obviously the need to have Tatiana
>>>>> in council for the vote tomorrow and we don't have time to make new
>>>>> decisions before then.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There's also the formal point that member removal is a significant
>>>>> decision, especially so when circumstances are unusual like now, and
>>>>> non-trivial decisions should not be made as last-minute AOB items.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This should not be too hard to do properly, especially if we can agree
>>>>> on the list about Ed's status and replacement (changing Tatiana's
>>>>> status from alternate to replacement), or otherwise let's put it on
>>>>> next meeting agenda.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> 
>>>> Joan Kerr,
>>>> 
>>>> Social Entrepreneur, Humanitarian
>>>> 
>>>> T: +1 (416) 907-0783
>>>> 
>>>> Skype: joankerr_fbsc
>>>> 
>>>> fbsc.org, www.fbsc.eco
>>>> 
>>>> Chair: Victory Garden Leadership Implementation Team
>>>> 
>>>> Chair: IEEE Smart Villages Project, Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
>>>> 
>>>> Chair: Agricultural Track, IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference
>>>> 
>>>> Chair: ICANN Not for Profit Operational Concerns Constituency
>>>> 
>>>> Advisor, IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives Committee
>>>> 
>>>> Advisor, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network, (CSAYN) Global
>>>> Coordination Unit
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec



From robin at ipjustice.org  Tue Aug  1 02:39:02 2017
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 16:39:02 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Election timeline
In-Reply-To: <20170628141812.bot5ctwfgugeqshk@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20170628141812.bot5ctwfgugeqshk@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <38E91CF2-BE75-4EE5-B793-176C238A3752@ipjustice.org>

Shouldn?t this election timeline be given to the membership by now?  It appears that the nomination period has already begun but we are late in informing the membership of that or any of these election details.  I thought we decided in our meeting last week to get this election timeline out to the membership upon that meeting?s conclusion.  I?m concerned with how late we are in getting this annual election properly announced. 

Thanks,
Robin


> On Jun 28, 2017, at 7:18 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> We discussed election timeline briefly in our meeting today.
> 
> Looking at calendar now, here's a bit more detailed version:
> 
> July 17  voter check-in begins
> July 31  nomination period begins
> Aug  13  nomination period ends
> Aug  17  voter check-in ends
> Aug  18  deadline for nomination acceptance
> Aug  19  deadline for candidate statements
> Aug  21  voting begins
> Sep   3  voting ends
> Sep   4  results announced
> 
> This is just first draft, I don't know when we must have results - I'm
> probably being overcautious here assuming first week of September.
> 
> There're also some other aspects that might merit discussion, like how
> long time we want between end of nomination period and voting.
> 
> Comments welcome.
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec



From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Tue Aug  1 06:52:35 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 06:52:35 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Procedural errors
In-Reply-To: <1F7B5D16-FC15-46D4-8997-9D665AAC1738@ipjustice.org>
References: <20170730151612.w3d5aaowkbpjbaaf@tarvainen.info>
 <CADwmshKDfq67=OeDbycJ=3S466Mg55m5Cb=C8n7rAo49SvsqGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170731160053.gq626irf4vhz2all@tarvainen.info>
 <7DF95579-DDC0-4D71-B444-44C83C2C0CE8@ipjustice.org>
 <20170731164733.xuuot7fl3uas55np@tarvainen.info>
 <1F7B5D16-FC15-46D4-8997-9D665AAC1738@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20170801035232.573225ti3kq2r7pl@roller.tarvainen.info>

Dear Robin,

With due respect I have to disagree.

We made two formally conflicting decisions, we could
not let them both stand. The first, Tatiana's appointment,
was clear and unquestionable, the second, Ed's status,
much less so for a number of reasons.

I don't think anybody would've been happy if I had
failed to appoint Tatiana because of the latter. Would you?

But, I agree that Ed's message was clear enough regarding
his council seat, and he has indeed just confirmed it
in a message to James Bladel, so there's no need to
debate that any more.

What we need to do, however, is to change Tatiana's
status from temporary alternate to temporary replacement.

Tapani

On Jul 31 15:34, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> 
> Tapani,
> 
> The EC made a decision last week to accept Ed?s resignation and note it for the record.  You do not have the authority to over-turn the unanimous decision of the EC.  Decisions of the EC must be unanimous by all members of the committee.  After the committee has made a unanimous decision, the chair has no authority to ?undo? the decision, as you have attempted to do.  I don?t know what authority you think you have to over-turn a decision of the committee to accept his resignation from the NCSG.
> 
> Furthermore, there is nothing unclear or ambiguous about Ed?s resignation.  Surely people don?t have to list every single list they are a member of before their resignation can be accepted.  Ed's written resignation letter very explicitly said to remove him from ?ALL lists? and this unambiguously includes the membership list.  This resignation comes as no surprise as it was long foretold by Ed and others, and your attempts to revive his membership have gone unanswered by him.  The only one this resignation seems ?confused? to is you.
> 
> Robin
> 
> 
> > On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Robin,
> > 
> > As I've already noted, Ed's email is not exactly clear, his talk in
> > Johannesburg much less so (saying he intends to resign is not same as
> > resigning, after all he'd said it many times before).
> > 
> > And our AOB talk on Friday was confused, in particular we didn't make
> > at all clear if we're talking about him leaving just the council or
> > his NCSG membership or what. So I want to do it properly.
> > 
> > Tapani
> > 
> > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:22:42AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> >> 
> >> I?m not sure where all the confusion and mystery is coming from.  Ed told many people in Joburg he was resigning, including yourself, which we discussed on this list.  Then he sent a resignation email to you on July 11 instructing you to remove him from all lists, which was forwarded to the EC weeks ago.  We don?t need for the EC to ?agree" to his resignation for it to take effect.  We on the EC cannot keep a person on the membership roles when they have explicitly instructed us to remove them.  As Ed had resigned in writing on 11 July, Tatiana?s appointment should have been presented as a replacement instead of alternate to begin with.  Let?s just change it to replacement and get on our work.
> >> 
> >> Thanks
> >> Robin
> >> 
> >>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Hi Joan,
> >>> 
> >>> Thank you, but first we'll have to work out Ed's removal properly,
> >>> and we do need a new decision, by current EC.
> >>> 
> >>> What we could and probably should do is decide that Tatiana will
> >>> be appointed as replacement as soon as Ed's removal from the council
> >>> is formally confirmed, so there'd be no danger of a gap in our
> >>> council represenation.
> >>> 
> >>> Tapani
> >>> 
> >>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:24:06AM -0400, Joan Kerr (joankerr at fbsc.org) wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> Hi Tapani, All
> >>>> 
> >>>> I am responding to this email, because I was part of the meeting on
> >>>> Friday.  I support Tatiana as replacement instead of alternate.
> >>>> 
> >>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> >>>> Virus-free.
> >>>> www.avast.com
> >>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> >>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <
> >>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Staff has pointed out that we made a procedural error in our Friday
> >>>>> meeting:
> >>>>> two decisions that are in conflict with each other, both cannot be let
> >>>>> stand.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Specifically, like proxy, temporary alternate can only be appointed for
> >>>>> a councillor who's formally still in office. When a councillor resigns,
> >>>>> proxy assignments and temporary alternate appointments are nullified,
> >>>>> and a temporary replacement (different from alternate) should be appointed.
> >>>>> So if we deem Ed to have resigned, Tatiana's appointment is void.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> This should not be hard to fix, but as time is short, I am going to let
> >>>>> Tatiana's appointment stand as it is and set our decision regarding Ed
> >>>>> aside, or rather consider the latter to be mere discussion.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The practical reason for this is obviously the need to have Tatiana
> >>>>> in council for the vote tomorrow and we don't have time to make new
> >>>>> decisions before then.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> There's also the formal point that member removal is a significant
> >>>>> decision, especially so when circumstances are unusual like now, and
> >>>>> non-trivial decisions should not be made as last-minute AOB items.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> This should not be too hard to do properly, especially if we can agree
> >>>>> on the list about Ed's status and replacement (changing Tatiana's
> >>>>> status from alternate to replacement), or otherwise let's put it on
> >>>>> next meeting agenda.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
> >>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> -- 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Joan Kerr,
> >>>> 
> >>>> Social Entrepreneur, Humanitarian
> >>>> 
> >>>> T: +1 (416) 907-0783
> >>>> 
> >>>> Skype: joankerr_fbsc
> >>>> 
> >>>> fbsc.org, www.fbsc.eco
> >>>> 
> >>>> Chair: Victory Garden Leadership Implementation Team
> >>>> 
> >>>> Chair: IEEE Smart Villages Project, Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
> >>>> 
> >>>> Chair: Agricultural Track, IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference
> >>>> 
> >>>> Chair: ICANN Not for Profit Operational Concerns Constituency
> >>>> 
> >>>> Advisor, IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives Committee
> >>>> 
> >>>> Advisor, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network, (CSAYN) Global
> >>>> Coordination Unit


From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Tue Aug  1 06:56:10 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 06:56:10 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Call for consensus: Tatiana Tropina as temporary
	replacement
Message-ID: <20170801035609.ou6at3icposuhnpw@roller.tarvainen.info>

Dear all,

As Ed Morris' resignation from the council has been confirmed,
we need to appoint a temporary replament for him. If we can agree
on the list, we can do it fast without having to do an extra call.

I therefore call for consensus on appointint Tatiana Tropina for the
task. Quick responses would be appreciated.

Thank you,

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From gangactor at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 07:11:06 2017
From: gangactor at yahoo.com (gangadhar)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 04:11:06 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Call for consensus: Tatiana Tropina as
	temporary	replacement
In-Reply-To: <20170801035609.ou6at3icposuhnpw@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20170801035609.ou6at3icposuhnpw@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <1180909068.624416.1501560666653@mail.yahoo.com>

Hi all,I support Tatiana as replacement instead of alternate.Mine is an additional backup support as member.best wishesGanga
?Actor, EnvironmentalistPresident - Babul Films Society NGO np?http://www.imdb.me/ gangadharpandaywww.babul.ngo
 

    On Tuesday, 1 August 2017 9:26 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
 

 Dear all,

As Ed Morris' resignation from the council has been confirmed,
we need to appoint a temporary replament for him. If we can agree
on the list, we can do it fast without having to do an extra call.

I therefore call for consensus on appointint Tatiana Tropina for the
task. Quick responses would be appreciated.

Thank you,

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen
_______________________________________________
NCSG-EC mailing list
NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20170801/544a30e6/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Tue Aug  1 09:23:46 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 09:23:46 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Election timeline
In-Reply-To: <38E91CF2-BE75-4EE5-B793-176C238A3752@ipjustice.org>
References: <20170628141812.bot5ctwfgugeqshk@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <38E91CF2-BE75-4EE5-B793-176C238A3752@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20170801062346.orjginyzadcwjmuq@roller.tarvainen.info>

Hi Robin,

Yes, it should be. Actually I had the mail announcing it ready waiting
for Poncelet but got distracted by other stuff yesterday.

I'll send it out immediately.

Tapani


On Jul 31 16:39, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> 
> Shouldn?t this election timeline be given to the membership by now?  It appears that the nomination period has already begun but we are late in informing the membership of that or any of these election details.  I thought we decided in our meeting last week to get this election timeline out to the membership upon that meeting?s conclusion.  I?m concerned with how late we are in getting this annual election properly announced. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
> > On Jun 28, 2017, at 7:18 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear all,
> > 
> > We discussed election timeline briefly in our meeting today.
> > 
> > Looking at calendar now, here's a bit more detailed version:
> > 
> > July 17  voter check-in begins
> > July 31  nomination period begins
> > Aug  13  nomination period ends
> > Aug  17  voter check-in ends
> > Aug  18  deadline for nomination acceptance
> > Aug  19  deadline for candidate statements
> > Aug  21  voting begins
> > Sep   3  voting ends
> > Sep   4  results announced
> > 
> > This is just first draft, I don't know when we must have results - I'm
> > probably being overcautious here assuming first week of September.
> > 
> > There're also some other aspects that might merit discussion, like how
> > long time we want between end of nomination period and voting.
> > 
> > Comments welcome.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> > _______________________________________________
> > NCSG-EC mailing list
> > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
> 

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Tue Aug  1 17:56:08 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 17:56:08 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Fwd: Farewell to NCSG/NCUC
Message-ID: <20170801145608.x47fh4fbgicoywvz@tarvainen.info>

FYI for those who didn't see this on ncuc-discuss.

Maryam, please remove Peter from NCSG member database and mailing lists.

Tapani

----- Forwarded message from Peter Green <seekcommunications at hotmail.com> -----

I am really sorry and upset for making such a decision after my participation in NCSG/NCUC for 4 years.

Dear NCSG Chair Mr. Tapani Tarvainen,
Though it is time to complete the annual NCSG membership check-in, I could not do so.
It is my personal decision that I now conduct a check-out of NCSG as an individual member.

Dear NCUC Chair Ms. Farzaneh Badii,
Due to my personal decision of quitting NCSG, it?s not legal for me to be an individual member of NCUC, hence I now quit NCUC as an individual member.

Dear Maryam,
Could you please be kind to eliminate me from the membership list of both NCSG and NCUC ?
Could you please be kind to unsubscribe me from both the NCSG and NCUC mailing list and all related mailing lists?


Thanks so much!

Keeing the email in my emailbox for days, it did take me a long and hard time to make this decision.

The decision was based on my belief that I could not further be involved with NCUC with my legal individual membership eligibility questioned by different levels of cognition in terms of interpreting the NCUC membership eligibility terms in the current effective NCUC Bylaws, which had been revised while not effective now.

It was difficult for me to participate in NCUC with untrust in me.
For avoidance of any further problems, I have no intention to participate in NCSG any more.

Since the former NCUC EC (2016-2017)?s illegitimate action in August 2016, requesting me as the Asian/Pacific Representative of NCUC EC to resign, I took this as a case to ICANN Ombudsman. Now it has been a whole year and the case is ultimately over.

The case is over with irreversible effect on me. I could not be part of NCUC with deserved trust.
I would like to extend my farewell to NCUC/NCSG.

Thanks for those who had ever followed the case.
I wish you all know what happened and what are the real problems reflected in my case. (Please see the email below by Tapani, which is a great summary of this case.)
Thanks for those who support me!
I did learn a lot from you guys. It?s nice working with you over the last several years.

NCUC is the start of my ICANN journey, which shall not be the end.
There are many of you who I have never met. Looking forward to meeting you.
Still would see you in the ICANN community! Hope could see you in future ICANN meetings.

Wish you all good in your life and work.
Thank you all!

Best Regards
Zuan Zhang/Peter Green



________________________________
???: Ncuc-discuss <ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> ?? Tapani Tarvainen <ncuc at tapani.tarvainen.info>
????: 2017?4?23? 19:00
???: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
??: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Case Zuan Zhang aka Peter Green

Dear all,

Now that we have seen the statement from former EC members as well as
Zuan's response, it is time to review what happened and how, try to
understand what went wrong and why, and what lessons we could draw
from it.

I must admit I find a big puzzling suggestions that we should not
discuss this any more. Surely the point of making statements to the
membership is to allow members to review and discuss them. And there
clearly are open questions, issues that have not been discussed
anywhere near thoroughly.

Zuan was removed from the EC and by now his term would've expired long
ago anyway, in that sense the case is closed - but it's only been just
opened for analyzing what happened.

******

Transparency and due process are our core values, issues we keep
pushing for in ICANN. I may be naive or idealistic in that, but I do
believe we should try to live the way we preach as much as we can.

And in this case transparency and due process did not fare well.

Of course, being human we all make mistakes. I sure have made my share
of them. And errors are always easier to see with hindsight.

But when we do make mistakes, we should not try to forget them as soon
as possible. Instead we should try to learn from them so we can do
better in the future. It really isn't enough to say it "could have
been handled better" without any suggestion as to how, or to note
transparency concerns without actually addressing them.

My intent is not to blame or accuse or embarrass anyone or determine
guilt or anything like that. I see no reason to assume anyone acted in
bad faith, and I will not name any potential culprits. Rather this a
story of how even with the best of intentions things can go awry, and
as far as I can tell the fault lies largely in the process, lack of
proper procedures, and that's the main reason why I think it is
important to understand what happened: we need to fix that, write up
procedures so that things will be better next time.

So, I'm not so much concerned with the who or even with the what but
with the *how*.

This discussion is particularly timely because NCSG EC has been
working on detailed member removal procedural rules as per our charter
2.2.6., and we're planning to it bring out the first draft for the
membership to review within a few weeks. Having a precedent to reflect
on should be most useful there.

As for whether or not Zuan was actually ineligible for NCSG or NCUC
membership at the time, I've refrained from taking a stand because as
NCSG Chair I would not want to prejudge it in case it came to NCSG EC.
But for the present purpose it doesn't matter much: it is sufficient
to note it was not totally obvious, a foregone conclusion, but one
where reasonably people could disagree, one in need of both
fact-finding and rule-reading before reaching a decision.

Another issue is if NCUC EC had (has) the right to expel or suspend
its members. While there's no such right in old (current) bylaws, it
can be argued it could be derived from some general principles, but
surely that is not altogether obvious either.

I do think there *should* be a way to remove EC members and I'm glad
it's been taken care of in the proposed new bylaws. I don't see,
however, how that could somehow vindicate actions taken under the old
bylaws. If anything, the need for such a change could be seen
indicating the old (current) bylaws did not give such right to the EC.

But what I'm most worried about would be just as worrysome even if
Zuan had been utterly and obviously ineligible and even if there had
been explicit right in the bylaws for the EC to expel him (even though
in that case things would probably have happened differently).

******

Let's take a look at what happened, as far as is publicly known.

A brief timeline:

(1) July 2016 (uncertain): One or more people complained about Zuan's
eligibility to someone in the NCUC EC.

(2) July-August 2016 (exact dates unknown): EC members, excluding
Zuan, discussed the issue in a private email exchange and concluded
that Zuan was ineligible to NCSG (or NCUC) membership and that
therefore he should be removed from NCUC EC.

(3) August 2, 2016: Zuan was notified of this by private email,
stating it was NCUC EC conclusion, demanding his immediate
resignation.

(4) August 3, 2016: Zuan contacted NCSG Chair (me), having interpreted
the message as an official decision to expel him from the NCSG as well
as from the NCUC. I told him that NCUC EC had no right to make such a
determination about NCSG membership, as that belongs to the NCSG EC.
I also wrote to the NCUC EC members in question expressing my
disapproval of the process.

(5) August 8, 2016: the letter sent to Zuan was published on this list
and it sparked a discussion that went on for some time.
http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-August/019065.html

(6) August 12, 2016: Zuan announced he'd take the issue to the Ombudsman and
discussion on the list soon subsided, waiting for Ombudsman's actions.
http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2016-August/019114.html

(7) August 19, 2016: NCUC EC had a normal, recorded meeting to discuss
the issue. Zuan did NOT participate, and the EC decided to suspend him but
did not replace him, instead leaving his seat vacant.
http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-ec/2016-August/002991.html

(8) April 10, 2017: Former NCUC EC members statement about the case
was posted to this list.
http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2017-April/020478.html

(9) April 13, 2017: Ombudsman posted Zuan's response.
http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2017-April/020521.html

******

Observations and questions:

While current NCUC bylaws do not have anything about expelling members
from the EC anymore than from NCUC itself, NCSG Charter does.
Indeed the letter sent to Zuan only referred to NCSG rules, and in any
case the elibility rules for NCUC are essentially same as for NCSG.

So why wasn't this referred to NCSG EC? The initial complainants
might well have been unaware of these legalistic details, but
NCUC EC members certainly should have known them and notified
NCSG EC about the situation.

Second, if it was concluded Zuan was ineligible for NCSG (or NCUC)
membership, why only remove him from the EC? Wouldn't it have been
their duty to remove him from the entire NCUC (and notify NCSG EC so
he could be removed from NCSG)?

Third, the big procedural irregularity: why was the decision
made in a private, still not published, email exchange?

The only explanation given is that raising the issue in public "could
have been construed as an intimidating public attack on Peter".

While that's a fair reason as far as it goes, and I'm sure it was a
real reason, there must've been something else, too, as it begs the
question why Zuan was not included in the discussion earlier, indeed
from the very beginning.

He thought he was a member of the EC, equal to others. Then he is
being told that others have met in secret, without him, and judged him
without his participation and found him guilty, and are saying they
made an official decision about him - a decision of the EC he's
supposed to be a member of.

It shouldn't take much psychological insight to predict that would not
go down well. And trying to follow up by inviting him to defend
himself in an official meeting after he knows he's already been judged
and found guilty wasn't likely to help much either.

Equally puzzling is why NCSG EC was not involved. If the case for
confidentiality was good, there should have been no reason to assume
NCSG EC would not accept it as well.

We don't know what took place in that email exchange, so we can only
guess why all those decision were taken that with hindsight seem so
strange. And while I don't think we can force them to be published, on
the other hand I do see any reason why people involved couldn't
publish them if they so chose, and it might help us understand what
really happened.

I won't argue people should not have private conversations, but it
does become problematic if such secret discussions become de facto
fora for decisions that should be made publicly.

Especially so in a case like this: expelling a democratically elected
member of the EC is just about as momentous as decisions get, and
given that it was indeed unprecedented and that there were no explicit
rules about it in the bylaws, a public discussion would have been all
the more important.

But what is really unacceptable is to make and implement official EC
decisions in secret. It is really beyond the pale, it is what really
shocked me when I first learned about this.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you make an official
decision it should follow all the rules and have all the trappings it
implies, including proper documentation. If you only have a private
conversation, its outcome is nothing but personal opinions, and
shouldn't be claimed as anything more.

******

Analyzing in any detail the motivations and thoughts of people involved
is beyond me and probably would not be constructive either. But I will
offer one speculative suggestion:

The real problem was (and remains) lack of trust.

It seems pretty clear that at least some members of the NCUC EC
distrusted Zuan, some distrusted NCSG EC and/or Chair, some people
didn't trust NCUC EC, and some distrusted the process, didn't trust the
rules we have to be good enough to handle the situation properly.

******

Finally, what could and should we do about this?

Trust is notoriously difficult to build and to maintain. I don't have
any magic solution to that. But there are things that can help there,
and things that can ameliorate the bad effects of distrust.

This will be important when we discuss the NCSG member removal
procedures later in NCSG-DISCUSS and consider the impact of various
procedural choices in detail.

For now I'll conclude with the observation that it would help to have
better, more explicit rules, and realistic rules, such that take into
account human weaknesses, including the need to save face. In
particular, if we think there're issues that should be discussed in
confidence, and there might be, we should make rules about how and
when it should happen.

Comments welcome.

--
Tapani Tarvainen
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss

----- End forwarded message -----


From Monika.Zalnieriute at EUI.eu  Tue Aug  1 22:13:42 2017
From: Monika.Zalnieriute at EUI.eu (Zalnieriute, Monika)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 19:13:42 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Call for consensus: Tatiana Tropina
	as	temporary	replacement
In-Reply-To: <1180909068.624416.1501560666653@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20170801035609.ou6at3icposuhnpw@roller.tarvainen.info>,
 <1180909068.624416.1501560666653@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <HE1PR0501MB201076151387B1ECD6313BBFF6B30@HE1PR0501MB2010.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Dear All,


I also support Tatiana for this,


Kind regards,



Dr. Monika Zalnieriute



Post-Doctoral Fellow @ Melbourne Law School |

The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I

185 Pelham St, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia I



Visiting Fellow @ Center for Media, Data and Society I

Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu I



Representative @ Executive Committee I

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org I










________________________________
From: NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> on behalf of gangadhar via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 4:11 AM
To: Tapani Tarvainen; NCSG EC
Subject: Re: [NCSG-EC] Call for consensus: Tatiana Tropina as temporary replacement

Hi all,
I support Tatiana as replacement instead of alternate.
Mine is an additional backup support as member.
best wishes
Ganga

Actor, Environmentalist
President - Babul Films Society NGO np
http://www.imdb.me/ gangadharpanday<http://www.imdb.me/gangadharpanday>
[https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjI4OTkyNjQ4OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDA1NDQ2MDI at ._V1_UY1200_CR484,0,630,1200_AL_.jpg]<http://www.imdb.me/gangadharpanday>

Gangadhar Panday<http://www.imdb.me/gangadharpanday>
www.imdb.me
Gangadhar Panday, Actor: Bobby Jasoos. Mission:be an thinking actor sans opinions. Born into a Hindi speaking North Indian family that migrated to Rayalaseema in South 150 years ago, he got school education in rural environment. Started working early while doing distance education courses. He is a post-graduate and has many PG Diplomas. Quit government job to pursue Cinema & Environment. Now he is a full-time actor based out of ...


www.babul.ngo



On Tuesday, 1 August 2017 9:26 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:


Dear all,

As Ed Morris' resignation from the council has been confirmed,
we need to appoint a temporary replament for him. If we can agree
on the list, we can do it fast without having to do an extra call.

I therefore call for consensus on appointint Tatiana Tropina for the
task. Quick responses would be appreciated.

Thank you,

--
Tapani Tarvainen
_______________________________________________
NCSG-EC mailing list
NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is<mailto:NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is>
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec



The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20170801/61d63574/attachment.htm>

From robin at ipjustice.org  Wed Aug  2 01:00:47 2017
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:00:47 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Procedural errors
In-Reply-To: <20170801035232.573225ti3kq2r7pl@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20170730151612.w3d5aaowkbpjbaaf@tarvainen.info>
 <CADwmshKDfq67=OeDbycJ=3S466Mg55m5Cb=C8n7rAo49SvsqGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170731160053.gq626irf4vhz2all@tarvainen.info>
 <7DF95579-DDC0-4D71-B444-44C83C2C0CE8@ipjustice.org>
 <20170731164733.xuuot7fl3uas55np@tarvainen.info>
 <1F7B5D16-FC15-46D4-8997-9D665AAC1738@ipjustice.org>
 <20170801035232.573225ti3kq2r7pl@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <B94A1E48-B695-45FD-896B-10A1734BD82E@ipjustice.org>

Tapani,

The greatest procedural error in all of this seems to be your presumption that you have the authority to overturn a decision of the EC.  Had you simply framed Ed's appointment as a replacement rather than an alternate in the first place (your error) we wouldn?t be having these problems.  Also, Ed?s resignation from NCSG was clearly made in writing on 11 July and was unambiguous about him leaving council.  For you to try to use your mistake in word selection to overturn the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation is rather remarkable.  There is nothing in the charter that gives the chair the authority to overturn EC decisions, procedural error or not.  You are illegitimately choosing an arbitrary binary as the only possible solutions to your error, but there is no basis in logic or in the charter for you to think you have the authority to set aside EC decisions at your discretion.  The charter gives you no such authority, especially not when you make the errors, that are now used to try to justify your over-turning the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation.  We explicitly agreed on the EC call last week that Ed?s language was explicit enough to interpret it as a complete resignation.  The point was discussed and decided.  Perhaps you should check the transcript if you don?t remember that.  That EC decision stands and it is another usurpation of this committee?s authority for you to attempt to over-turn it.

Robin


> On Jul 31, 2017, at 8:52 PM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> 
> Dear Robin,
> 
> With due respect I have to disagree.
> 
> We made two formally conflicting decisions, we could
> not let them both stand. The first, Tatiana's appointment,
> was clear and unquestionable, the second, Ed's status,
> much less so for a number of reasons.
> 
> I don't think anybody would've been happy if I had
> failed to appoint Tatiana because of the latter. Would you?
> 
> But, I agree that Ed's message was clear enough regarding
> his council seat, and he has indeed just confirmed it
> in a message to James Bladel, so there's no need to
> debate that any more.
> 
> What we need to do, however, is to change Tatiana's
> status from temporary alternate to temporary replacement.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Jul 31 15:34, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
>> 
>> Tapani,
>> 
>> The EC made a decision last week to accept Ed?s resignation and note it for the record.  You do not have the authority to over-turn the unanimous decision of the EC.  Decisions of the EC must be unanimous by all members of the committee.  After the committee has made a unanimous decision, the chair has no authority to ?undo? the decision, as you have attempted to do.  I don?t know what authority you think you have to over-turn a decision of the committee to accept his resignation from the NCSG.
>> 
>> Furthermore, there is nothing unclear or ambiguous about Ed?s resignation.  Surely people don?t have to list every single list they are a member of before their resignation can be accepted.  Ed's written resignation letter very explicitly said to remove him from ?ALL lists? and this unambiguously includes the membership list.  This resignation comes as no surprise as it was long foretold by Ed and others, and your attempts to revive his membership have gone unanswered by him.  The only one this resignation seems ?confused? to is you.
>> 
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Robin,
>>> 
>>> As I've already noted, Ed's email is not exactly clear, his talk in
>>> Johannesburg much less so (saying he intends to resign is not same as
>>> resigning, after all he'd said it many times before).
>>> 
>>> And our AOB talk on Friday was confused, in particular we didn't make
>>> at all clear if we're talking about him leaving just the council or
>>> his NCSG membership or what. So I want to do it properly.
>>> 
>>> Tapani
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:22:42AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I?m not sure where all the confusion and mystery is coming from.  Ed told many people in Joburg he was resigning, including yourself, which we discussed on this list.  Then he sent a resignation email to you on July 11 instructing you to remove him from all lists, which was forwarded to the EC weeks ago.  We don?t need for the EC to ?agree" to his resignation for it to take effect.  We on the EC cannot keep a person on the membership roles when they have explicitly instructed us to remove them.  As Ed had resigned in writing on 11 July, Tatiana?s appointment should have been presented as a replacement instead of alternate to begin with.  Let?s just change it to replacement and get on our work.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Robin
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Joan,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you, but first we'll have to work out Ed's removal properly,
>>>>> and we do need a new decision, by current EC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What we could and probably should do is decide that Tatiana will
>>>>> be appointed as replacement as soon as Ed's removal from the council
>>>>> is formally confirmed, so there'd be no danger of a gap in our
>>>>> council represenation.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tapani
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:24:06AM -0400, Joan Kerr (joankerr at fbsc.org) wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Tapani, All
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I am responding to this email, because I was part of the meeting on
>>>>>> Friday.  I support Tatiana as replacement instead of alternate.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>>>>> Virus-free.
>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <
>>>>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Staff has pointed out that we made a procedural error in our Friday
>>>>>>> meeting:
>>>>>>> two decisions that are in conflict with each other, both cannot be let
>>>>>>> stand.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Specifically, like proxy, temporary alternate can only be appointed for
>>>>>>> a councillor who's formally still in office. When a councillor resigns,
>>>>>>> proxy assignments and temporary alternate appointments are nullified,
>>>>>>> and a temporary replacement (different from alternate) should be appointed.
>>>>>>> So if we deem Ed to have resigned, Tatiana's appointment is void.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This should not be hard to fix, but as time is short, I am going to let
>>>>>>> Tatiana's appointment stand as it is and set our decision regarding Ed
>>>>>>> aside, or rather consider the latter to be mere discussion.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The practical reason for this is obviously the need to have Tatiana
>>>>>>> in council for the vote tomorrow and we don't have time to make new
>>>>>>> decisions before then.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There's also the formal point that member removal is a significant
>>>>>>> decision, especially so when circumstances are unusual like now, and
>>>>>>> non-trivial decisions should not be made as last-minute AOB items.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This should not be too hard to do properly, especially if we can agree
>>>>>>> on the list about Ed's status and replacement (changing Tatiana's
>>>>>>> status from alternate to replacement), or otherwise let's put it on
>>>>>>> next meeting agenda.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Joan Kerr,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Social Entrepreneur, Humanitarian
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> T: +1 (416) 907-0783
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Skype: joankerr_fbsc
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> fbsc.org, www.fbsc.eco
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Chair: Victory Garden Leadership Implementation Team
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Chair: IEEE Smart Villages Project, Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Chair: Agricultural Track, IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Chair: ICANN Not for Profit Operational Concerns Constituency
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Advisor, IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives Committee
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Advisor, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network, (CSAYN) Global
>>>>>> Coordination Unit
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec



From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Wed Aug  2 14:26:02 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 14:26:02 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Procedural errors
In-Reply-To: <B94A1E48-B695-45FD-896B-10A1734BD82E@ipjustice.org>
References: <20170730151612.w3d5aaowkbpjbaaf@tarvainen.info>
 <CADwmshKDfq67=OeDbycJ=3S466Mg55m5Cb=C8n7rAo49SvsqGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170731160053.gq626irf4vhz2all@tarvainen.info>
 <7DF95579-DDC0-4D71-B444-44C83C2C0CE8@ipjustice.org>
 <20170731164733.xuuot7fl3uas55np@tarvainen.info>
 <1F7B5D16-FC15-46D4-8997-9D665AAC1738@ipjustice.org>
 <20170801035232.573225ti3kq2r7pl@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <B94A1E48-B695-45FD-896B-10A1734BD82E@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20170802112602.utwxc56kax4nv7vx@tarvainen.info>

Dear Robin,

When I'm faced with two conflicting decisions to implement, I not
only can but I must choose which one to implement, if either.
I can't do otherwise any more than I can defy gravity.

But before (or hopefully instead of) digging deeper into legalistic
arguments, fun though that might be, let's talk about substance.

For there may be something more to this than it appeared at first.
I thought the procedural error would have been easy to fix by re-doing
the decision properly, but it seems I was wrong.

The question at hand was not removal for a cause, but simply
determination of Ed's intent, not something that should subject of
heated debate, and if we made a mistake there, we'd have to correct it
anyway.

We should be extra careful in removing members in unclear
circumstances. We spent a long time working on the member removal
procedures; we should not create loopholes or back doors that allow
members to be removed quickly, with last-minute AOB-item
interpretations of ambiguous messages, and thus bypassing all the
safeguards we'd otherwise be applying.

And Ed's message was ambiguous: the very fact that we're discussing it now
and indeed have discussed its meaning from the start is enough to prove that.

Moreover, Ed has had the opportunity to confirm it if resignation from
NCSG was his intent. We know he receives emails, in fact he reacted to
this very case by confirming his resignation from the Council, but he
did not do so regarding his NCSG membership, even though just as
easily could have.

And in the past we've never removed anyone who's resignation message
has been in the least bit unclear, but always acted only after getting
unambiguous confirmation or lost contact for a *very* long time.

So the decision to remove him from NCSG was not only procedurally but
also substantively wrong.

Frankly I'm having hard time understanding why you're making a big
issue out of this and why you wanted it dealt with so quickly by
bringing it to the EC as last-minute AOB item and now fighting for it
tooth and nail. Regarding his councillorship there was a need to
resolve it urgently, indeed that's why I thought you brought it up in
the call, but his membership in NCSG has no significant impact in
anything that I can see, certainly there's no urgency in it that would
prevent us from dealing it with good time.

Or is there something I don't know going on? Why are you so eager to
get him removed so fast? Even if it is really only to express your
dissatisfaction in my performance, in this context it looks more than
a bit odd, when this really should be easy to do right.

Tapani


On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:00:47PM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:

> Tapani,
> 
> The greatest procedural error in all of this seems to be your presumption that you have the authority to overturn a decision of the EC.  Had you simply framed Ed's appointment as a replacement rather than an alternate in the first place (your error) we wouldn?t be having these problems.  Also, Ed?s resignation from NCSG was clearly made in writing on 11 July and was unambiguous about him leaving council.  For you to try to use your mistake in word selection to overturn the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation is rather remarkable.  There is nothing in the charter that gives the chair the authority to overturn EC decisions, procedural error or not.  You are illegitimately choosing an arbitrary binary as the only possible solutions to your error, but there is no basis in logic or in the charter for you to think you have the authority to set aside EC decisions at your discretion.  The charter gives you no such authority, especially not when you make the errors, that are now used to try to justify your over-turning the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation.  We explicitly agreed on the EC call last week that Ed?s language was explicit enough to interpret it as a complete resignation.  The point was discussed and decided.  Perhaps you should check the transcript if you don?t remember that.  That EC decision stands and it is another usurpation of this committee?s authority for you to attempt to over-turn it.
> 
> Robin
> 
> 
> > On Jul 31, 2017, at 8:52 PM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear Robin,
> > 
> > With due respect I have to disagree.
> > 
> > We made two formally conflicting decisions, we could
> > not let them both stand. The first, Tatiana's appointment,
> > was clear and unquestionable, the second, Ed's status,
> > much less so for a number of reasons.
> > 
> > I don't think anybody would've been happy if I had
> > failed to appoint Tatiana because of the latter. Would you?
> > 
> > But, I agree that Ed's message was clear enough regarding
> > his council seat, and he has indeed just confirmed it
> > in a message to James Bladel, so there's no need to
> > debate that any more.
> > 
> > What we need to do, however, is to change Tatiana's
> > status from temporary alternate to temporary replacement.
> > 
> > Tapani
> > 
> > On Jul 31 15:34, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> >> 
> >> Tapani,
> >> 
> >> The EC made a decision last week to accept Ed?s resignation and note it for the record.  You do not have the authority to over-turn the unanimous decision of the EC.  Decisions of the EC must be unanimous by all members of the committee.  After the committee has made a unanimous decision, the chair has no authority to ?undo? the decision, as you have attempted to do.  I don?t know what authority you think you have to over-turn a decision of the committee to accept his resignation from the NCSG.
> >> 
> >> Furthermore, there is nothing unclear or ambiguous about Ed?s resignation.  Surely people don?t have to list every single list they are a member of before their resignation can be accepted.  Ed's written resignation letter very explicitly said to remove him from ?ALL lists? and this unambiguously includes the membership list.  This resignation comes as no surprise as it was long foretold by Ed and others, and your attempts to revive his membership have gone unanswered by him.  The only one this resignation seems ?confused? to is you.
> >> 
> >> Robin
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Hi Robin,
> >>> 
> >>> As I've already noted, Ed's email is not exactly clear, his talk in
> >>> Johannesburg much less so (saying he intends to resign is not same as
> >>> resigning, after all he'd said it many times before).
> >>> 
> >>> And our AOB talk on Friday was confused, in particular we didn't make
> >>> at all clear if we're talking about him leaving just the council or
> >>> his NCSG membership or what. So I want to do it properly.
> >>> 
> >>> Tapani
> >>> 
> >>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:22:42AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> I?m not sure where all the confusion and mystery is coming from.  Ed told many people in Joburg he was resigning, including yourself, which we discussed on this list.  Then he sent a resignation email to you on July 11 instructing you to remove him from all lists, which was forwarded to the EC weeks ago.  We don?t need for the EC to ?agree" to his resignation for it to take effect.  We on the EC cannot keep a person on the membership roles when they have explicitly instructed us to remove them.  As Ed had resigned in writing on 11 July, Tatiana?s appointment should have been presented as a replacement instead of alternate to begin with.  Let?s just change it to replacement and get on our work.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>> Robin
> >>>> 
> >>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Hi Joan,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Thank you, but first we'll have to work out Ed's removal properly,
> >>>>> and we do need a new decision, by current EC.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> What we could and probably should do is decide that Tatiana will
> >>>>> be appointed as replacement as soon as Ed's removal from the council
> >>>>> is formally confirmed, so there'd be no danger of a gap in our
> >>>>> council represenation.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Tapani
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:24:06AM -0400, Joan Kerr (joankerr at fbsc.org) wrote:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Hi Tapani, All
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I am responding to this email, because I was part of the meeting on
> >>>>>> Friday.  I support Tatiana as replacement instead of alternate.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> >>>>>> Virus-free.
> >>>>>> www.avast.com
> >>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> >>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <
> >>>>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Staff has pointed out that we made a procedural error in our Friday
> >>>>>>> meeting:
> >>>>>>> two decisions that are in conflict with each other, both cannot be let
> >>>>>>> stand.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Specifically, like proxy, temporary alternate can only be appointed for
> >>>>>>> a councillor who's formally still in office. When a councillor resigns,
> >>>>>>> proxy assignments and temporary alternate appointments are nullified,
> >>>>>>> and a temporary replacement (different from alternate) should be appointed.
> >>>>>>> So if we deem Ed to have resigned, Tatiana's appointment is void.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> This should not be hard to fix, but as time is short, I am going to let
> >>>>>>> Tatiana's appointment stand as it is and set our decision regarding Ed
> >>>>>>> aside, or rather consider the latter to be mere discussion.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> The practical reason for this is obviously the need to have Tatiana
> >>>>>>> in council for the vote tomorrow and we don't have time to make new
> >>>>>>> decisions before then.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> There's also the formal point that member removal is a significant
> >>>>>>> decision, especially so when circumstances are unusual like now, and
> >>>>>>> non-trivial decisions should not be made as last-minute AOB items.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> This should not be too hard to do properly, especially if we can agree
> >>>>>>> on the list about Ed's status and replacement (changing Tatiana's
> >>>>>>> status from alternate to replacement), or otherwise let's put it on
> >>>>>>> next meeting agenda.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
> >>>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Joan Kerr,
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Social Entrepreneur, Humanitarian
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> T: +1 (416) 907-0783
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Skype: joankerr_fbsc
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> fbsc.org, www.fbsc.eco
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Chair: Victory Garden Leadership Implementation Team
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Chair: IEEE Smart Villages Project, Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Chair: Agricultural Track, IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Chair: ICANN Not for Profit Operational Concerns Constituency
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Advisor, IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives Committee
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Advisor, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network, (CSAYN) Global
> >>>>>> Coordination Unit
> > _______________________________________________
> > NCSG-EC mailing list
> > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
> 

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From robin at ipjustice.org  Wed Aug  2 18:49:54 2017
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 08:49:54 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Procedural errors
In-Reply-To: <20170802112602.utwxc56kax4nv7vx@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170730151612.w3d5aaowkbpjbaaf@tarvainen.info>
 <CADwmshKDfq67=OeDbycJ=3S466Mg55m5Cb=C8n7rAo49SvsqGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170731160053.gq626irf4vhz2all@tarvainen.info>
 <7DF95579-DDC0-4D71-B444-44C83C2C0CE8@ipjustice.org>
 <20170731164733.xuuot7fl3uas55np@tarvainen.info>
 <1F7B5D16-FC15-46D4-8997-9D665AAC1738@ipjustice.org>
 <20170801035232.573225ti3kq2r7pl@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <B94A1E48-B695-45FD-896B-10A1734BD82E@ipjustice.org>
 <20170802112602.utwxc56kax4nv7vx@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <E6D62A00-4241-4AAE-AF40-D34AB3AA68DE@ipjustice.org>

Tapani,

You are either missing or refusing to see the point: you are not a dictator to this committee.  The chair is supposed to carry out the duties UNDER THE SUPERVISION of the EC according to our charter.  You have routinely disregarded any supervision and done as you pleased, and in this case, in explicit contradiction to the decision of the EC and the request of the member seeking removal.

If you think there was a procedural problem with an EC decision that needs rectifying, you should come back to the committee and say ?hey, I made a mistake.  How should WE proceed?  Here is what I propose...?

But you didn?t (don?t) do that.  Instead you come back and say ?I decided this decision could not stand so I decided to overturn it do this other thing instead.?  And then implement your own unilateral decision without any supervision or opportunity by the EC to discuss your earlier procedural error and how WE might want to handle it.

You are again attempting to usurp the authority of the committee and replace the committee's judgment with your own unilateral decisions.  Minor procedural errors by your own creating do not grant you the authority to overturn EC decisions at your own unchecked discretion.  That is what you don?t seem to understand and what has been a consistent problem since you became you chair.

Robin


> On Aug 2, 2017, at 4:26 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> 
> Dear Robin,
> 
> When I'm faced with two conflicting decisions to implement, I not
> only can but I must choose which one to implement, if either.
> I can't do otherwise any more than I can defy gravity.
> 
> But before (or hopefully instead of) digging deeper into legalistic
> arguments, fun though that might be, let's talk about substance.
> 
> For there may be something more to this than it appeared at first.
> I thought the procedural error would have been easy to fix by re-doing
> the decision properly, but it seems I was wrong.
> 
> The question at hand was not removal for a cause, but simply
> determination of Ed's intent, not something that should subject of
> heated debate, and if we made a mistake there, we'd have to correct it
> anyway.
> 
> We should be extra careful in removing members in unclear
> circumstances. We spent a long time working on the member removal
> procedures; we should not create loopholes or back doors that allow
> members to be removed quickly, with last-minute AOB-item
> interpretations of ambiguous messages, and thus bypassing all the
> safeguards we'd otherwise be applying.
> 
> And Ed's message was ambiguous: the very fact that we're discussing it now
> and indeed have discussed its meaning from the start is enough to prove that.
> 
> Moreover, Ed has had the opportunity to confirm it if resignation from
> NCSG was his intent. We know he receives emails, in fact he reacted to
> this very case by confirming his resignation from the Council, but he
> did not do so regarding his NCSG membership, even though just as
> easily could have.
> 
> And in the past we've never removed anyone who's resignation message
> has been in the least bit unclear, but always acted only after getting
> unambiguous confirmation or lost contact for a *very* long time.
> 
> So the decision to remove him from NCSG was not only procedurally but
> also substantively wrong.
> 
> Frankly I'm having hard time understanding why you're making a big
> issue out of this and why you wanted it dealt with so quickly by
> bringing it to the EC as last-minute AOB item and now fighting for it
> tooth and nail. Regarding his councillorship there was a need to
> resolve it urgently, indeed that's why I thought you brought it up in
> the call, but his membership in NCSG has no significant impact in
> anything that I can see, certainly there's no urgency in it that would
> prevent us from dealing it with good time.
> 
> Or is there something I don't know going on? Why are you so eager to
> get him removed so fast? Even if it is really only to express your
> dissatisfaction in my performance, in this context it looks more than
> a bit odd, when this really should be easy to do right.
> 
> Tapani
> 
> 
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:00:47PM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> 
>> Tapani,
>> 
>> The greatest procedural error in all of this seems to be your presumption that you have the authority to overturn a decision of the EC.  Had you simply framed Ed's appointment as a replacement rather than an alternate in the first place (your error) we wouldn?t be having these problems.  Also, Ed?s resignation from NCSG was clearly made in writing on 11 July and was unambiguous about him leaving council.  For you to try to use your mistake in word selection to overturn the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation is rather remarkable.  There is nothing in the charter that gives the chair the authority to overturn EC decisions, procedural error or not.  You are illegitimately choosing an arbitrary binary as the only possible solutions to your error, but there is no basis in logic or in the charter for you to think you have the authority to set aside EC decisions at your discretion.  The charter gives you no such authority, especially not when you make the errors, that are now used to try to justify your over-turning the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation.  We explicitly agreed on the EC call last week that Ed?s language was explicit enough to interpret it as a complete resignation.  The point was discussed and decided.  Perhaps you should check the transcript if you don?t remember that.  That EC decision stands and it is another usurpation of this committee?s authority for you to attempt to over-turn it.
>> 
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 8:52 PM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Robin,
>>> 
>>> With due respect I have to disagree.
>>> 
>>> We made two formally conflicting decisions, we could
>>> not let them both stand. The first, Tatiana's appointment,
>>> was clear and unquestionable, the second, Ed's status,
>>> much less so for a number of reasons.
>>> 
>>> I don't think anybody would've been happy if I had
>>> failed to appoint Tatiana because of the latter. Would you?
>>> 
>>> But, I agree that Ed's message was clear enough regarding
>>> his council seat, and he has indeed just confirmed it
>>> in a message to James Bladel, so there's no need to
>>> debate that any more.
>>> 
>>> What we need to do, however, is to change Tatiana's
>>> status from temporary alternate to temporary replacement.
>>> 
>>> Tapani
>>> 
>>> On Jul 31 15:34, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Tapani,
>>>> 
>>>> The EC made a decision last week to accept Ed?s resignation and note it for the record.  You do not have the authority to over-turn the unanimous decision of the EC.  Decisions of the EC must be unanimous by all members of the committee.  After the committee has made a unanimous decision, the chair has no authority to ?undo? the decision, as you have attempted to do.  I don?t know what authority you think you have to over-turn a decision of the committee to accept his resignation from the NCSG.
>>>> 
>>>> Furthermore, there is nothing unclear or ambiguous about Ed?s resignation.  Surely people don?t have to list every single list they are a member of before their resignation can be accepted.  Ed's written resignation letter very explicitly said to remove him from ?ALL lists? and this unambiguously includes the membership list.  This resignation comes as no surprise as it was long foretold by Ed and others, and your attempts to revive his membership have gone unanswered by him.  The only one this resignation seems ?confused? to is you.
>>>> 
>>>> Robin
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>>> 
>>>>> As I've already noted, Ed's email is not exactly clear, his talk in
>>>>> Johannesburg much less so (saying he intends to resign is not same as
>>>>> resigning, after all he'd said it many times before).
>>>>> 
>>>>> And our AOB talk on Friday was confused, in particular we didn't make
>>>>> at all clear if we're talking about him leaving just the council or
>>>>> his NCSG membership or what. So I want to do it properly.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tapani
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:22:42AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I?m not sure where all the confusion and mystery is coming from.  Ed told many people in Joburg he was resigning, including yourself, which we discussed on this list.  Then he sent a resignation email to you on July 11 instructing you to remove him from all lists, which was forwarded to the EC weeks ago.  We don?t need for the EC to ?agree" to his resignation for it to take effect.  We on the EC cannot keep a person on the membership roles when they have explicitly instructed us to remove them.  As Ed had resigned in writing on 11 July, Tatiana?s appointment should have been presented as a replacement instead of alternate to begin with.  Let?s just change it to replacement and get on our work.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Joan,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you, but first we'll have to work out Ed's removal properly,
>>>>>>> and we do need a new decision, by current EC.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What we could and probably should do is decide that Tatiana will
>>>>>>> be appointed as replacement as soon as Ed's removal from the council
>>>>>>> is formally confirmed, so there'd be no danger of a gap in our
>>>>>>> council represenation.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:24:06AM -0400, Joan Kerr (joankerr at fbsc.org) wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi Tapani, All
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I am responding to this email, because I was part of the meeting on
>>>>>>>> Friday.  I support Tatiana as replacement instead of alternate.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>>>>>>> Virus-free.
>>>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <
>>>>>>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Staff has pointed out that we made a procedural error in our Friday
>>>>>>>>> meeting:
>>>>>>>>> two decisions that are in conflict with each other, both cannot be let
>>>>>>>>> stand.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Specifically, like proxy, temporary alternate can only be appointed for
>>>>>>>>> a councillor who's formally still in office. When a councillor resigns,
>>>>>>>>> proxy assignments and temporary alternate appointments are nullified,
>>>>>>>>> and a temporary replacement (different from alternate) should be appointed.
>>>>>>>>> So if we deem Ed to have resigned, Tatiana's appointment is void.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> This should not be hard to fix, but as time is short, I am going to let
>>>>>>>>> Tatiana's appointment stand as it is and set our decision regarding Ed
>>>>>>>>> aside, or rather consider the latter to be mere discussion.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The practical reason for this is obviously the need to have Tatiana
>>>>>>>>> in council for the vote tomorrow and we don't have time to make new
>>>>>>>>> decisions before then.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> There's also the formal point that member removal is a significant
>>>>>>>>> decision, especially so when circumstances are unusual like now, and
>>>>>>>>> non-trivial decisions should not be made as last-minute AOB items.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> This should not be too hard to do properly, especially if we can agree
>>>>>>>>> on the list about Ed's status and replacement (changing Tatiana's
>>>>>>>>> status from alternate to replacement), or otherwise let's put it on
>>>>>>>>> next meeting agenda.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>>>>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Joan Kerr,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Social Entrepreneur, Humanitarian
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> T: +1 (416) 907-0783
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Skype: joankerr_fbsc
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> fbsc.org, www.fbsc.eco
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Chair: Victory Garden Leadership Implementation Team
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Chair: IEEE Smart Villages Project, Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Chair: Agricultural Track, IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Chair: ICANN Not for Profit Operational Concerns Constituency
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Advisor, IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives Committee
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Advisor, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network, (CSAYN) Global
>>>>>>>> Coordination Unit
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec



From plommer at gmail.com  Thu Aug  3 09:58:03 2017
From: plommer at gmail.com (Raoul Plommer)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 09:58:03 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Call for consensus: Tatiana Tropina as temporary
	replacement
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0501MB201076151387B1ECD6313BBFF6B30@HE1PR0501MB2010.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20170801035609.ou6at3icposuhnpw@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <1180909068.624416.1501560666653@mail.yahoo.com>
 <HE1PR0501MB201076151387B1ECD6313BBFF6B30@HE1PR0501MB2010.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <CADirp9SYOnnvsLawV3tkr_4TS75VFgfROCMDtkUO52exbjC7tQ@mail.gmail.com>

I agree, Tatiana is a worthy councillor and will probably make an excellent
replacement.

-Raoul

On 1 August 2017 at 22:13, Zalnieriute, Monika via NCSG-EC <
ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
>
> I also support Tatiana for this,
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Dr. Monika Zalnieriute
>
>
>
> Post-Doctoral Fellow @ Melbourne Law School |
>
> The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I
>
> 185 Pelham St, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia I
>
>
>
> Visiting Fellow @ Center for Media, Data and Society I
>
> Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu I
>
>
>
> Representative @ Executive Committee I
>
> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org I
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> on behalf of gangadhar
> via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 1, 2017 4:11 AM
> *To:* Tapani Tarvainen; NCSG EC
> *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-EC] Call for consensus: Tatiana Tropina as temporary
> replacement
>
> Hi all,
> I support Tatiana as replacement instead of alternate.
> Mine is an additional backup support as member.
> best wishes
> Ganga
>
> Actor, Environmentalist
> President - Babul Films Society NGO np
> http://www.imdb.me/ gangadharpanday <http://www.imdb.me/gangadharpanday>
> <http://www.imdb.me/gangadharpanday>
> Gangadhar Panday <http://www.imdb.me/gangadharpanday>
> www.imdb.me
> Gangadhar Panday, Actor: Bobby Jasoos. Mission:be an thinking actor sans
> opinions. Born into a Hindi speaking North Indian family that migrated to
> Rayalaseema in South 150 years ago, he got school education in rural
> environment. Started working early while doing distance education courses.
> He is a post-graduate and has many PG Diplomas. Quit government job to
> pursue Cinema & Environment. Now he is a full-time actor based out of ...
>
> www.babul.ngo
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, 1 August 2017 9:26 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <
> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> As Ed Morris' resignation from the council has been confirmed,
> we need to appoint a temporary replament for him. If we can agree
> on the list, we can do it fast without having to do an extra call.
>
> I therefore call for consensus on appointint Tatiana Tropina for the
> task. Quick responses would be appreciated.
>
> Thank you,
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>
>
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
> forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
> this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20170803/d6212cbd/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Fri Aug  4 15:30:08 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 15:30:08 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Procedural errors
In-Reply-To: <E6D62A00-4241-4AAE-AF40-D34AB3AA68DE@ipjustice.org>
References: <20170730151612.w3d5aaowkbpjbaaf@tarvainen.info>
 <CADwmshKDfq67=OeDbycJ=3S466Mg55m5Cb=C8n7rAo49SvsqGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170731160053.gq626irf4vhz2all@tarvainen.info>
 <7DF95579-DDC0-4D71-B444-44C83C2C0CE8@ipjustice.org>
 <20170731164733.xuuot7fl3uas55np@tarvainen.info>
 <1F7B5D16-FC15-46D4-8997-9D665AAC1738@ipjustice.org>
 <20170801035232.573225ti3kq2r7pl@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <B94A1E48-B695-45FD-896B-10A1734BD82E@ipjustice.org>
 <20170802112602.utwxc56kax4nv7vx@tarvainen.info>
 <E6D62A00-4241-4AAE-AF40-D34AB3AA68DE@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20170804123008.ks4d246tx7exqvw5@tarvainen.info>

Dear Robin,

Thank you for the explanation. I'm still not quite sure I understand
where you're coming from, but perhaps we're getting closer.

First I had trouble understanding your complaint, because I thought I'd
done almost exactly what you ask: as soon as I became aware of the problem,
I notified the EC that we made a mistake we must fix. "Almost" because
I did let Tatiana's temporary alternate appointment stand without waiting
for the EC to reconsider it.

Apparently at least part of the issue is communication, I haven't expressed
myself clearly. When I said I'd put a decision aside, I didn't intend it to
mean I'll discard it, rather that I won't immediately implement what to me
seemed to be an obvious mistake and instead will bring the issue back to the
EC. Contrary to your claim, I explicitly chose *not* to implement the
decision about Ed before bringing it back to the EC. With Tatiana I
admittedly did, because time was short and it seemed less problematic.

I agree I could have phrased things better, now as well as any number of
times in the past I'm sure, more "hygge" fashion if you like. I will accept
chastisement in this regard and try to use more convivial wordings and
discussion style in the future.

But if the EC at any time makes another decision that seems to me to be a
simple mistake due to too much rush or whatever, I will do substantively the
same thing: bring it back to the EC before rushing to implementation. I think
I would be derelict of my duty if I didn't do that.

If the decision, whatever it is, is indeed obvious, redoing it properly
should not be a big deal.


Back to the issues at hand.

First, Tatiana's appointment.

You seem to be arguing there's no significant difference between a temporary
altenate and a temporary replacement and that I could simply have
reinterpreted the EC decision from alternate to replacement. If so, I must
disagree - then I would indeed have acted contrary to EC's explicit decision.
And in fact we could not have appointed her as a temporary replacement before
Ed's resignation from the council was confirmed.

Yes, I could have canceled her alternate appointment as soon as talk with
staff brought the problem to my attention (no, I did not make it up) and
waited for the EC to make a new decision, but time was short and I thought
the alternate appointment was in fact done properly.

What we could and in retrospect should have done is to appoint her as
temporary alternate then and, as a separate decision, decide to
appoint her as temporary replacement as soon as Ed's resignation from
the council would be confirmed.

Fortunately that is easy to fix: just do the latter decision now,
as I've already asked for you to do on the list. We really should
decide that before next Council meeting on August 24.


Second, Ed's status.

First I thought this would be easy as well. But clearly it is not.
Fortunately it's not urgent either, as far as I can see.

My real mistake was allowing it as a decision item in the first place.

For the EC actually has no right to make such decisions.

You're saying I'm refusing to accept Ed's resignation. If so, the only
person with standing to challenge it is Ed, nobody else - not you
(unless you're his attorney), not the EC.

As noted earlier, the issue is not removing him for a cause, which
would belong to the EC, but determination of his intent.

And maintaining membership data is responsibility of the Chair.

Under the supervision of the EC, yes. I have already invited you to
discuss the issue, seeking your advice before doing anything, and
in the end you have several means to exercise your supevision,
all the way down to removing me from office.

So, will not remove Ed from NCSG membership without further
discussion.

I have not decided what to do about it and remain open to persuasion.

But merely saying "it's already decided" won't cut it. A quick
last-minute AOB decision, arguably hard to distinguish from mere
discussion, does not count as supervision in my book.

And I would very much like to discuss the substance of the case in more
general terms, including if we should write down procedures for handling
this kind of situations in the future. As I said, I see no reason to rush.

Sincerely,

Tapani


On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:49:54AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> 
> Tapani,
> 
> You are either missing or refusing to see the point: you are not a dictator to this committee.  The chair is supposed to carry out the duties UNDER THE SUPERVISION of the EC according to our charter.  You have routinely disregarded any supervision and done as you pleased, and in this case, in explicit contradiction to the decision of the EC and the request of the member seeking removal.
> 
> If you think there was a procedural problem with an EC decision that needs rectifying, you should come back to the committee and say ?hey, I made a mistake.  How should WE proceed?  Here is what I propose...?
> 
> But you didn?t (don?t) do that.  Instead you come back and say ?I decided this decision could not stand so I decided to overturn it do this other thing instead.?  And then implement your own unilateral decision without any supervision or opportunity by the EC to discuss your earlier procedural error and how WE might want to handle it.
> 
> You are again attempting to usurp the authority of the committee and replace the committee's judgment with your own unilateral decisions.  Minor procedural errors by your own creating do not grant you the authority to overturn EC decisions at your own unchecked discretion.  That is what you don?t seem to understand and what has been a consistent problem since you became you chair.
> 
> Robin
> 
> 
> > On Aug 2, 2017, at 4:26 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear Robin,
> > 
> > When I'm faced with two conflicting decisions to implement, I not
> > only can but I must choose which one to implement, if either.
> > I can't do otherwise any more than I can defy gravity.
> > 
> > But before (or hopefully instead of) digging deeper into legalistic
> > arguments, fun though that might be, let's talk about substance.
> > 
> > For there may be something more to this than it appeared at first.
> > I thought the procedural error would have been easy to fix by re-doing
> > the decision properly, but it seems I was wrong.
> > 
> > The question at hand was not removal for a cause, but simply
> > determination of Ed's intent, not something that should subject of
> > heated debate, and if we made a mistake there, we'd have to correct it
> > anyway.
> > 
> > We should be extra careful in removing members in unclear
> > circumstances. We spent a long time working on the member removal
> > procedures; we should not create loopholes or back doors that allow
> > members to be removed quickly, with last-minute AOB-item
> > interpretations of ambiguous messages, and thus bypassing all the
> > safeguards we'd otherwise be applying.
> > 
> > And Ed's message was ambiguous: the very fact that we're discussing it now
> > and indeed have discussed its meaning from the start is enough to prove that.
> > 
> > Moreover, Ed has had the opportunity to confirm it if resignation from
> > NCSG was his intent. We know he receives emails, in fact he reacted to
> > this very case by confirming his resignation from the Council, but he
> > did not do so regarding his NCSG membership, even though just as
> > easily could have.
> > 
> > And in the past we've never removed anyone who's resignation message
> > has been in the least bit unclear, but always acted only after getting
> > unambiguous confirmation or lost contact for a *very* long time.
> > 
> > So the decision to remove him from NCSG was not only procedurally but
> > also substantively wrong.
> > 
> > Frankly I'm having hard time understanding why you're making a big
> > issue out of this and why you wanted it dealt with so quickly by
> > bringing it to the EC as last-minute AOB item and now fighting for it
> > tooth and nail. Regarding his councillorship there was a need to
> > resolve it urgently, indeed that's why I thought you brought it up in
> > the call, but his membership in NCSG has no significant impact in
> > anything that I can see, certainly there's no urgency in it that would
> > prevent us from dealing it with good time.
> > 
> > Or is there something I don't know going on? Why are you so eager to
> > get him removed so fast? Even if it is really only to express your
> > dissatisfaction in my performance, in this context it looks more than
> > a bit odd, when this really should be easy to do right.
> > 
> > Tapani
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:00:47PM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> > 
> >> Tapani,
> >> 
> >> The greatest procedural error in all of this seems to be your presumption that you have the authority to overturn a decision of the EC.  Had you simply framed Ed's appointment as a replacement rather than an alternate in the first place (your error) we wouldn?t be having these problems.  Also, Ed?s resignation from NCSG was clearly made in writing on 11 July and was unambiguous about him leaving council.  For you to try to use your mistake in word selection to overturn the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation is rather remarkable.  There is nothing in the charter that gives the chair the authority to overturn EC decisions, procedural error or not.  You are illegitimately choosing an arbitrary binary as the only possible solutions to your error, but there is no basis in logic or in the charter for you to think you have the authority to set aside EC decisions at your discretion.  The charter gives you no such authority, especially not when you make the errors, that are now used to try to justify your over-turning the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation.  We explicitly agreed on the EC call last week that Ed?s language was explicit enough to interpret it as a complete resignation.  The point was discussed and decided.  Perhaps you should check the transcript if you don?t remember that.  That EC decision stands and it is another usurpation of this committee?s authority for you to attempt to over-turn it.
> >> 
> >> Robin
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 8:52 PM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Dear Robin,
> >>> 
> >>> With due respect I have to disagree.
> >>> 
> >>> We made two formally conflicting decisions, we could
> >>> not let them both stand. The first, Tatiana's appointment,
> >>> was clear and unquestionable, the second, Ed's status,
> >>> much less so for a number of reasons.
> >>> 
> >>> I don't think anybody would've been happy if I had
> >>> failed to appoint Tatiana because of the latter. Would you?
> >>> 
> >>> But, I agree that Ed's message was clear enough regarding
> >>> his council seat, and he has indeed just confirmed it
> >>> in a message to James Bladel, so there's no need to
> >>> debate that any more.
> >>> 
> >>> What we need to do, however, is to change Tatiana's
> >>> status from temporary alternate to temporary replacement.
> >>> 
> >>> Tapani
> >>> 
> >>> On Jul 31 15:34, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> Tapani,
> >>>> 
> >>>> The EC made a decision last week to accept Ed?s resignation and note it for the record.  You do not have the authority to over-turn the unanimous decision of the EC.  Decisions of the EC must be unanimous by all members of the committee.  After the committee has made a unanimous decision, the chair has no authority to ?undo? the decision, as you have attempted to do.  I don?t know what authority you think you have to over-turn a decision of the committee to accept his resignation from the NCSG.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Furthermore, there is nothing unclear or ambiguous about Ed?s resignation.  Surely people don?t have to list every single list they are a member of before their resignation can be accepted.  Ed's written resignation letter very explicitly said to remove him from ?ALL lists? and this unambiguously includes the membership list.  This resignation comes as no surprise as it was long foretold by Ed and others, and your attempts to revive his membership have gone unanswered by him.  The only one this resignation seems ?confused? to is you.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Robin
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Hi Robin,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> As I've already noted, Ed's email is not exactly clear, his talk in
> >>>>> Johannesburg much less so (saying he intends to resign is not same as
> >>>>> resigning, after all he'd said it many times before).
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> And our AOB talk on Friday was confused, in particular we didn't make
> >>>>> at all clear if we're talking about him leaving just the council or
> >>>>> his NCSG membership or what. So I want to do it properly.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Tapani
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:22:42AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I?m not sure where all the confusion and mystery is coming from.  Ed told many people in Joburg he was resigning, including yourself, which we discussed on this list.  Then he sent a resignation email to you on July 11 instructing you to remove him from all lists, which was forwarded to the EC weeks ago.  We don?t need for the EC to ?agree" to his resignation for it to take effect.  We on the EC cannot keep a person on the membership roles when they have explicitly instructed us to remove them.  As Ed had resigned in writing on 11 July, Tatiana?s appointment should have been presented as a replacement instead of alternate to begin with.  Let?s just change it to replacement and get on our work.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>> Robin
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Hi Joan,
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Thank you, but first we'll have to work out Ed's removal properly,
> >>>>>>> and we do need a new decision, by current EC.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> What we could and probably should do is decide that Tatiana will
> >>>>>>> be appointed as replacement as soon as Ed's removal from the council
> >>>>>>> is formally confirmed, so there'd be no danger of a gap in our
> >>>>>>> council represenation.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Tapani
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:24:06AM -0400, Joan Kerr (joankerr at fbsc.org) wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Hi Tapani, All
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> I am responding to this email, because I was part of the meeting on
> >>>>>>>> Friday.  I support Tatiana as replacement instead of alternate.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> >>>>>>>> Virus-free.
> >>>>>>>> www.avast.com
> >>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> >>>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <
> >>>>>>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Staff has pointed out that we made a procedural error in our Friday
> >>>>>>>>> meeting:
> >>>>>>>>> two decisions that are in conflict with each other, both cannot be let
> >>>>>>>>> stand.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Specifically, like proxy, temporary alternate can only be appointed for
> >>>>>>>>> a councillor who's formally still in office. When a councillor resigns,
> >>>>>>>>> proxy assignments and temporary alternate appointments are nullified,
> >>>>>>>>> and a temporary replacement (different from alternate) should be appointed.
> >>>>>>>>> So if we deem Ed to have resigned, Tatiana's appointment is void.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> This should not be hard to fix, but as time is short, I am going to let
> >>>>>>>>> Tatiana's appointment stand as it is and set our decision regarding Ed
> >>>>>>>>> aside, or rather consider the latter to be mere discussion.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> The practical reason for this is obviously the need to have Tatiana
> >>>>>>>>> in council for the vote tomorrow and we don't have time to make new
> >>>>>>>>> decisions before then.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> There's also the formal point that member removal is a significant
> >>>>>>>>> decision, especially so when circumstances are unusual like now, and
> >>>>>>>>> non-trivial decisions should not be made as last-minute AOB items.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> This should not be too hard to do properly, especially if we can agree
> >>>>>>>>> on the list about Ed's status and replacement (changing Tatiana's
> >>>>>>>>> status from alternate to replacement), or otherwise let's put it on
> >>>>>>>>> next meeting agenda.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
> >>>>>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> >>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Joan Kerr,
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Social Entrepreneur, Humanitarian
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> T: +1 (416) 907-0783
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Skype: joankerr_fbsc
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> fbsc.org, www.fbsc.eco
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Chair: Victory Garden Leadership Implementation Team
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Chair: IEEE Smart Villages Project, Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Chair: Agricultural Track, IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Chair: ICANN Not for Profit Operational Concerns Constituency
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Advisor, IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives Committee
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Advisor, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network, (CSAYN) Global
> >>>>>>>> Coordination Unit


From robin at ipjustice.org  Fri Aug  4 18:05:14 2017
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 08:05:14 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Procedural errors
In-Reply-To: <20170804123008.ks4d246tx7exqvw5@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170730151612.w3d5aaowkbpjbaaf@tarvainen.info>
 <CADwmshKDfq67=OeDbycJ=3S466Mg55m5Cb=C8n7rAo49SvsqGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170731160053.gq626irf4vhz2all@tarvainen.info>
 <7DF95579-DDC0-4D71-B444-44C83C2C0CE8@ipjustice.org>
 <20170731164733.xuuot7fl3uas55np@tarvainen.info>
 <1F7B5D16-FC15-46D4-8997-9D665AAC1738@ipjustice.org>
 <20170801035232.573225ti3kq2r7pl@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <B94A1E48-B695-45FD-896B-10A1734BD82E@ipjustice.org>
 <20170802112602.utwxc56kax4nv7vx@tarvainen.info>
 <E6D62A00-4241-4AAE-AF40-D34AB3AA68DE@ipjustice.org>
 <20170804123008.ks4d246tx7exqvw5@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <FDEC3B6D-96CF-4146-8BBF-CE378B8C917F@ipjustice.org>

Tapani,

Thank you for agreeing that you do not have the authority to overturn an EC decision, but are instead unilaterally refusing to implement the EC?s decision to accept Ed Morris? resignation from NCSG and that you are refusing to remove him from the membership and email lists.

Since you are holding up the implementation of the EC?s decision, I think your bringing the EC up to speed on what you have done in this matter is needed for us to decide what to do with your refusal.

1.  What steps have you taken to resolve any perceived ambiguity about Ed?s resignation from NCSG and what is the status of any inquiry?
2.  What lists did you remove Ed from upon receiving Ed's email instructing you to remove him from ?all lists??  Any?
3.  How do you propose the EC decide to implement our decision to accept Ed's resignation?  Keeping in mind it is an EC decision, not a chair decision.

Thanks,
Robin

> On Aug 4, 2017, at 5:30 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> 
> Dear Robin,
> 
> Thank you for the explanation. I'm still not quite sure I understand
> where you're coming from, but perhaps we're getting closer.
> 
> First I had trouble understanding your complaint, because I thought I'd
> done almost exactly what you ask: as soon as I became aware of the problem,
> I notified the EC that we made a mistake we must fix. "Almost" because
> I did let Tatiana's temporary alternate appointment stand without waiting
> for the EC to reconsider it.
> 
> Apparently at least part of the issue is communication, I haven't expressed
> myself clearly. When I said I'd put a decision aside, I didn't intend it to
> mean I'll discard it, rather that I won't immediately implement what to me
> seemed to be an obvious mistake and instead will bring the issue back to the
> EC. Contrary to your claim, I explicitly chose *not* to implement the
> decision about Ed before bringing it back to the EC. With Tatiana I
> admittedly did, because time was short and it seemed less problematic.
> 
> I agree I could have phrased things better, now as well as any number of
> times in the past I'm sure, more "hygge" fashion if you like. I will accept
> chastisement in this regard and try to use more convivial wordings and
> discussion style in the future.
> 
> But if the EC at any time makes another decision that seems to me to be a
> simple mistake due to too much rush or whatever, I will do substantively the
> same thing: bring it back to the EC before rushing to implementation. I think
> I would be derelict of my duty if I didn't do that.
> 
> If the decision, whatever it is, is indeed obvious, redoing it properly
> should not be a big deal.
> 
> 
> Back to the issues at hand.
> 
> First, Tatiana's appointment.
> 
> You seem to be arguing there's no significant difference between a temporary
> altenate and a temporary replacement and that I could simply have
> reinterpreted the EC decision from alternate to replacement. If so, I must
> disagree - then I would indeed have acted contrary to EC's explicit decision.
> And in fact we could not have appointed her as a temporary replacement before
> Ed's resignation from the council was confirmed.
> 
> Yes, I could have canceled her alternate appointment as soon as talk with
> staff brought the problem to my attention (no, I did not make it up) and
> waited for the EC to make a new decision, but time was short and I thought
> the alternate appointment was in fact done properly.
> 
> What we could and in retrospect should have done is to appoint her as
> temporary alternate then and, as a separate decision, decide to
> appoint her as temporary replacement as soon as Ed's resignation from
> the council would be confirmed.
> 
> Fortunately that is easy to fix: just do the latter decision now,
> as I've already asked for you to do on the list. We really should
> decide that before next Council meeting on August 24.
> 
> 
> Second, Ed's status.
> 
> First I thought this would be easy as well. But clearly it is not.
> Fortunately it's not urgent either, as far as I can see.
> 
> My real mistake was allowing it as a decision item in the first place.
> 
> For the EC actually has no right to make such decisions.
> 
> You're saying I'm refusing to accept Ed's resignation. If so, the only
> person with standing to challenge it is Ed, nobody else - not you
> (unless you're his attorney), not the EC.
> 
> As noted earlier, the issue is not removing him for a cause, which
> would belong to the EC, but determination of his intent.
> 
> And maintaining membership data is responsibility of the Chair.
> 
> Under the supervision of the EC, yes. I have already invited you to
> discuss the issue, seeking your advice before doing anything, and
> in the end you have several means to exercise your supevision,
> all the way down to removing me from office.
> 
> So, will not remove Ed from NCSG membership without further
> discussion.
> 
> I have not decided what to do about it and remain open to persuasion.
> 
> But merely saying "it's already decided" won't cut it. A quick
> last-minute AOB decision, arguably hard to distinguish from mere
> discussion, does not count as supervision in my book.
> 
> And I would very much like to discuss the substance of the case in more
> general terms, including if we should write down procedures for handling
> this kind of situations in the future. As I said, I see no reason to rush.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Tapani
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:49:54AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
>> 
>> Tapani,
>> 
>> You are either missing or refusing to see the point: you are not a dictator to this committee.  The chair is supposed to carry out the duties UNDER THE SUPERVISION of the EC according to our charter.  You have routinely disregarded any supervision and done as you pleased, and in this case, in explicit contradiction to the decision of the EC and the request of the member seeking removal.
>> 
>> If you think there was a procedural problem with an EC decision that needs rectifying, you should come back to the committee and say ?hey, I made a mistake.  How should WE proceed?  Here is what I propose...?
>> 
>> But you didn?t (don?t) do that.  Instead you come back and say ?I decided this decision could not stand so I decided to overturn it do this other thing instead.?  And then implement your own unilateral decision without any supervision or opportunity by the EC to discuss your earlier procedural error and how WE might want to handle it.
>> 
>> You are again attempting to usurp the authority of the committee and replace the committee's judgment with your own unilateral decisions.  Minor procedural errors by your own creating do not grant you the authority to overturn EC decisions at your own unchecked discretion.  That is what you don?t seem to understand and what has been a consistent problem since you became you chair.
>> 
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 2, 2017, at 4:26 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Robin,
>>> 
>>> When I'm faced with two conflicting decisions to implement, I not
>>> only can but I must choose which one to implement, if either.
>>> I can't do otherwise any more than I can defy gravity.
>>> 
>>> But before (or hopefully instead of) digging deeper into legalistic
>>> arguments, fun though that might be, let's talk about substance.
>>> 
>>> For there may be something more to this than it appeared at first.
>>> I thought the procedural error would have been easy to fix by re-doing
>>> the decision properly, but it seems I was wrong.
>>> 
>>> The question at hand was not removal for a cause, but simply
>>> determination of Ed's intent, not something that should subject of
>>> heated debate, and if we made a mistake there, we'd have to correct it
>>> anyway.
>>> 
>>> We should be extra careful in removing members in unclear
>>> circumstances. We spent a long time working on the member removal
>>> procedures; we should not create loopholes or back doors that allow
>>> members to be removed quickly, with last-minute AOB-item
>>> interpretations of ambiguous messages, and thus bypassing all the
>>> safeguards we'd otherwise be applying.
>>> 
>>> And Ed's message was ambiguous: the very fact that we're discussing it now
>>> and indeed have discussed its meaning from the start is enough to prove that.
>>> 
>>> Moreover, Ed has had the opportunity to confirm it if resignation from
>>> NCSG was his intent. We know he receives emails, in fact he reacted to
>>> this very case by confirming his resignation from the Council, but he
>>> did not do so regarding his NCSG membership, even though just as
>>> easily could have.
>>> 
>>> And in the past we've never removed anyone who's resignation message
>>> has been in the least bit unclear, but always acted only after getting
>>> unambiguous confirmation or lost contact for a *very* long time.
>>> 
>>> So the decision to remove him from NCSG was not only procedurally but
>>> also substantively wrong.
>>> 
>>> Frankly I'm having hard time understanding why you're making a big
>>> issue out of this and why you wanted it dealt with so quickly by
>>> bringing it to the EC as last-minute AOB item and now fighting for it
>>> tooth and nail. Regarding his councillorship there was a need to
>>> resolve it urgently, indeed that's why I thought you brought it up in
>>> the call, but his membership in NCSG has no significant impact in
>>> anything that I can see, certainly there's no urgency in it that would
>>> prevent us from dealing it with good time.
>>> 
>>> Or is there something I don't know going on? Why are you so eager to
>>> get him removed so fast? Even if it is really only to express your
>>> dissatisfaction in my performance, in this context it looks more than
>>> a bit odd, when this really should be easy to do right.
>>> 
>>> Tapani
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:00:47PM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Tapani,
>>>> 
>>>> The greatest procedural error in all of this seems to be your presumption that you have the authority to overturn a decision of the EC.  Had you simply framed Ed's appointment as a replacement rather than an alternate in the first place (your error) we wouldn?t be having these problems.  Also, Ed?s resignation from NCSG was clearly made in writing on 11 July and was unambiguous about him leaving council.  For you to try to use your mistake in word selection to overturn the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation is rather remarkable.  There is nothing in the charter that gives the chair the authority to overturn EC decisions, procedural error or not.  You are illegitimately choosing an arbitrary binary as the only possible solutions to your error, but there is no basis in logic or in the charter for you to think you have the authority to set aside EC decisions at your discretion.  The charter gives you no such authority, especially not when you make the errors, that are now used to try to justify your over-turning the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation.  We explicitly agreed on the EC call last week that Ed?s language was explicit enough to interpret it as a complete resignation.  The point was discussed and decided.  Perhaps you should check the transcript if you don?t remember that.  That EC decision stands and it is another usurpation of this committee?s authority for you to attempt to over-turn it.
>>>> 
>>>> Robin
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 8:52 PM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear Robin,
>>>>> 
>>>>> With due respect I have to disagree.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We made two formally conflicting decisions, we could
>>>>> not let them both stand. The first, Tatiana's appointment,
>>>>> was clear and unquestionable, the second, Ed's status,
>>>>> much less so for a number of reasons.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don't think anybody would've been happy if I had
>>>>> failed to appoint Tatiana because of the latter. Would you?
>>>>> 
>>>>> But, I agree that Ed's message was clear enough regarding
>>>>> his council seat, and he has indeed just confirmed it
>>>>> in a message to James Bladel, so there's no need to
>>>>> debate that any more.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What we need to do, however, is to change Tatiana's
>>>>> status from temporary alternate to temporary replacement.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tapani
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 31 15:34, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Tapani,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The EC made a decision last week to accept Ed?s resignation and note it for the record.  You do not have the authority to over-turn the unanimous decision of the EC.  Decisions of the EC must be unanimous by all members of the committee.  After the committee has made a unanimous decision, the chair has no authority to ?undo? the decision, as you have attempted to do.  I don?t know what authority you think you have to over-turn a decision of the committee to accept his resignation from the NCSG.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Furthermore, there is nothing unclear or ambiguous about Ed?s resignation.  Surely people don?t have to list every single list they are a member of before their resignation can be accepted.  Ed's written resignation letter very explicitly said to remove him from ?ALL lists? and this unambiguously includes the membership list.  This resignation comes as no surprise as it was long foretold by Ed and others, and your attempts to revive his membership have gone unanswered by him.  The only one this resignation seems ?confused? to is you.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As I've already noted, Ed's email is not exactly clear, his talk in
>>>>>>> Johannesburg much less so (saying he intends to resign is not same as
>>>>>>> resigning, after all he'd said it many times before).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And our AOB talk on Friday was confused, in particular we didn't make
>>>>>>> at all clear if we're talking about him leaving just the council or
>>>>>>> his NCSG membership or what. So I want to do it properly.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:22:42AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I?m not sure where all the confusion and mystery is coming from.  Ed told many people in Joburg he was resigning, including yourself, which we discussed on this list.  Then he sent a resignation email to you on July 11 instructing you to remove him from all lists, which was forwarded to the EC weeks ago.  We don?t need for the EC to ?agree" to his resignation for it to take effect.  We on the EC cannot keep a person on the membership roles when they have explicitly instructed us to remove them.  As Ed had resigned in writing on 11 July, Tatiana?s appointment should have been presented as a replacement instead of alternate to begin with.  Let?s just change it to replacement and get on our work.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi Joan,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thank you, but first we'll have to work out Ed's removal properly,
>>>>>>>>> and we do need a new decision, by current EC.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> What we could and probably should do is decide that Tatiana will
>>>>>>>>> be appointed as replacement as soon as Ed's removal from the council
>>>>>>>>> is formally confirmed, so there'd be no danger of a gap in our
>>>>>>>>> council represenation.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:24:06AM -0400, Joan Kerr (joankerr at fbsc.org) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Tapani, All
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I am responding to this email, because I was part of the meeting on
>>>>>>>>>> Friday.  I support Tatiana as replacement instead of alternate.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>>>>>>>>> Virus-free.
>>>>>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>>>>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <
>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Staff has pointed out that we made a procedural error in our Friday
>>>>>>>>>>> meeting:
>>>>>>>>>>> two decisions that are in conflict with each other, both cannot be let
>>>>>>>>>>> stand.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Specifically, like proxy, temporary alternate can only be appointed for
>>>>>>>>>>> a councillor who's formally still in office. When a councillor resigns,
>>>>>>>>>>> proxy assignments and temporary alternate appointments are nullified,
>>>>>>>>>>> and a temporary replacement (different from alternate) should be appointed.
>>>>>>>>>>> So if we deem Ed to have resigned, Tatiana's appointment is void.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> This should not be hard to fix, but as time is short, I am going to let
>>>>>>>>>>> Tatiana's appointment stand as it is and set our decision regarding Ed
>>>>>>>>>>> aside, or rather consider the latter to be mere discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> The practical reason for this is obviously the need to have Tatiana
>>>>>>>>>>> in council for the vote tomorrow and we don't have time to make new
>>>>>>>>>>> decisions before then.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> There's also the formal point that member removal is a significant
>>>>>>>>>>> decision, especially so when circumstances are unusual like now, and
>>>>>>>>>>> non-trivial decisions should not be made as last-minute AOB items.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> This should not be too hard to do properly, especially if we can agree
>>>>>>>>>>> on the list about Ed's status and replacement (changing Tatiana's
>>>>>>>>>>> status from alternate to replacement), or otherwise let's put it on
>>>>>>>>>>> next meeting agenda.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Joan Kerr,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Social Entrepreneur, Humanitarian
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> T: +1 (416) 907-0783
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Skype: joankerr_fbsc
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> fbsc.org, www.fbsc.eco
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Chair: Victory Garden Leadership Implementation Team
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Chair: IEEE Smart Villages Project, Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Chair: Agricultural Track, IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Chair: ICANN Not for Profit Operational Concerns Constituency
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Advisor, IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives Committee
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Advisor, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network, (CSAYN) Global
>>>>>>>>>> Coordination Unit
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec



From robin at ipjustice.org  Fri Aug  4 19:16:22 2017
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 09:16:22 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Procedural errors
In-Reply-To: <FDEC3B6D-96CF-4146-8BBF-CE378B8C917F@ipjustice.org>
References: <20170730151612.w3d5aaowkbpjbaaf@tarvainen.info>
 <CADwmshKDfq67=OeDbycJ=3S466Mg55m5Cb=C8n7rAo49SvsqGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170731160053.gq626irf4vhz2all@tarvainen.info>
 <7DF95579-DDC0-4D71-B444-44C83C2C0CE8@ipjustice.org>
 <20170731164733.xuuot7fl3uas55np@tarvainen.info>
 <1F7B5D16-FC15-46D4-8997-9D665AAC1738@ipjustice.org>
 <20170801035232.573225ti3kq2r7pl@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <B94A1E48-B695-45FD-896B-10A1734BD82E@ipjustice.org>
 <20170802112602.utwxc56kax4nv7vx@tarvainen.info>
 <E6D62A00-4241-4AAE-AF40-D34AB3AA68DE@ipjustice.org>
 <20170804123008.ks4d246tx7exqvw5@tarvainen.info>
 <FDEC3B6D-96CF-4146-8BBF-CE378B8C917F@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <DE608E57-31A7-43A6-A9C5-7E31256CEEEB@ipjustice.org>

Relevant excerpt from the attached transcript of the 28 July NCSG EC meeting:

Robin:   Yes. Thanks, Tapani. I just wanted to - or I thought we should confirm for the record that Ed Morris has resigned from the NCSG. I?ve seen there would have been some discussion on the GNSO council list where they were not quite sure of his status. And so I thought it was important that we just confirm that for the record. Thanks.

Tapani:   Thank you, Joan. Yes, that is a bit confusing because Ed?s messages on the subject, at least the ones I have seen, have been a bit ambiguous. But the one I posted on the list earlier saying that please remove me from everything sounds enough like a resignation to me. So I guess we can conclude that he has resigned and confirmed it. Any ...

Robin:   Great. Thanks. Yes, that was my reading as well, because since he said he resigned from all lists, that would include the membership list. Thanks.

Tapani:   Okay. Anybody disagree on that? Okay, so we?ll remove Ed from the member database. Any other business? Now, I see we are in good time actually despite the long agenda. We managed to do that in less than time made available. So unless anybody has any other business at this point. No? Okay, we're done. thank you everybody. It was an efficient meeting. ...






> On Aug 4, 2017, at 8:05 AM, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> 
> Tapani,
> 
> Thank you for agreeing that you do not have the authority to overturn an EC decision, but are instead unilaterally refusing to implement the EC?s decision to accept Ed Morris? resignation from NCSG and that you are refusing to remove him from the membership and email lists.
> 
> Since you are holding up the implementation of the EC?s decision, I think your bringing the EC up to speed on what you have done in this matter is needed for us to decide what to do with your refusal.
> 
> 1.  What steps have you taken to resolve any perceived ambiguity about Ed?s resignation from NCSG and what is the status of any inquiry?
> 2.  What lists did you remove Ed from upon receiving Ed's email instructing you to remove him from ?all lists??  Any?
> 3.  How do you propose the EC decide to implement our decision to accept Ed's resignation?  Keeping in mind it is an EC decision, not a chair decision.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
>> On Aug 4, 2017, at 5:30 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Robin,
>> 
>> Thank you for the explanation. I'm still not quite sure I understand
>> where you're coming from, but perhaps we're getting closer.
>> 
>> First I had trouble understanding your complaint, because I thought I'd
>> done almost exactly what you ask: as soon as I became aware of the problem,
>> I notified the EC that we made a mistake we must fix. "Almost" because
>> I did let Tatiana's temporary alternate appointment stand without waiting
>> for the EC to reconsider it.
>> 
>> Apparently at least part of the issue is communication, I haven't expressed
>> myself clearly. When I said I'd put a decision aside, I didn't intend it to
>> mean I'll discard it, rather that I won't immediately implement what to me
>> seemed to be an obvious mistake and instead will bring the issue back to the
>> EC. Contrary to your claim, I explicitly chose *not* to implement the
>> decision about Ed before bringing it back to the EC. With Tatiana I
>> admittedly did, because time was short and it seemed less problematic.
>> 
>> I agree I could have phrased things better, now as well as any number of
>> times in the past I'm sure, more "hygge" fashion if you like. I will accept
>> chastisement in this regard and try to use more convivial wordings and
>> discussion style in the future.
>> 
>> But if the EC at any time makes another decision that seems to me to be a
>> simple mistake due to too much rush or whatever, I will do substantively the
>> same thing: bring it back to the EC before rushing to implementation. I think
>> I would be derelict of my duty if I didn't do that.
>> 
>> If the decision, whatever it is, is indeed obvious, redoing it properly
>> should not be a big deal.
>> 
>> 
>> Back to the issues at hand.
>> 
>> First, Tatiana's appointment.
>> 
>> You seem to be arguing there's no significant difference between a temporary
>> altenate and a temporary replacement and that I could simply have
>> reinterpreted the EC decision from alternate to replacement. If so, I must
>> disagree - then I would indeed have acted contrary to EC's explicit decision.
>> And in fact we could not have appointed her as a temporary replacement before
>> Ed's resignation from the council was confirmed.
>> 
>> Yes, I could have canceled her alternate appointment as soon as talk with
>> staff brought the problem to my attention (no, I did not make it up) and
>> waited for the EC to make a new decision, but time was short and I thought
>> the alternate appointment was in fact done properly.
>> 
>> What we could and in retrospect should have done is to appoint her as
>> temporary alternate then and, as a separate decision, decide to
>> appoint her as temporary replacement as soon as Ed's resignation from
>> the council would be confirmed.
>> 
>> Fortunately that is easy to fix: just do the latter decision now,
>> as I've already asked for you to do on the list. We really should
>> decide that before next Council meeting on August 24.
>> 
>> 
>> Second, Ed's status.
>> 
>> First I thought this would be easy as well. But clearly it is not.
>> Fortunately it's not urgent either, as far as I can see.
>> 
>> My real mistake was allowing it as a decision item in the first place.
>> 
>> For the EC actually has no right to make such decisions.
>> 
>> You're saying I'm refusing to accept Ed's resignation. If so, the only
>> person with standing to challenge it is Ed, nobody else - not you
>> (unless you're his attorney), not the EC.
>> 
>> As noted earlier, the issue is not removing him for a cause, which
>> would belong to the EC, but determination of his intent.
>> 
>> And maintaining membership data is responsibility of the Chair.
>> 
>> Under the supervision of the EC, yes. I have already invited you to
>> discuss the issue, seeking your advice before doing anything, and
>> in the end you have several means to exercise your supevision,
>> all the way down to removing me from office.
>> 
>> So, will not remove Ed from NCSG membership without further
>> discussion.
>> 
>> I have not decided what to do about it and remain open to persuasion.
>> 
>> But merely saying "it's already decided" won't cut it. A quick
>> last-minute AOB decision, arguably hard to distinguish from mere
>> discussion, does not count as supervision in my book.
>> 
>> And I would very much like to discuss the substance of the case in more
>> general terms, including if we should write down procedures for handling
>> this kind of situations in the future. As I said, I see no reason to rush.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> Tapani
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:49:54AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
>>> 
>>> Tapani,
>>> 
>>> You are either missing or refusing to see the point: you are not a dictator to this committee.  The chair is supposed to carry out the duties UNDER THE SUPERVISION of the EC according to our charter.  You have routinely disregarded any supervision and done as you pleased, and in this case, in explicit contradiction to the decision of the EC and the request of the member seeking removal.
>>> 
>>> If you think there was a procedural problem with an EC decision that needs rectifying, you should come back to the committee and say ?hey, I made a mistake.  How should WE proceed?  Here is what I propose...?
>>> 
>>> But you didn?t (don?t) do that.  Instead you come back and say ?I decided this decision could not stand so I decided to overturn it do this other thing instead.?  And then implement your own unilateral decision without any supervision or opportunity by the EC to discuss your earlier procedural error and how WE might want to handle it.
>>> 
>>> You are again attempting to usurp the authority of the committee and replace the committee's judgment with your own unilateral decisions.  Minor procedural errors by your own creating do not grant you the authority to overturn EC decisions at your own unchecked discretion.  That is what you don?t seem to understand and what has been a consistent problem since you became you chair.
>>> 
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 2, 2017, at 4:26 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Robin,
>>>> 
>>>> When I'm faced with two conflicting decisions to implement, I not
>>>> only can but I must choose which one to implement, if either.
>>>> I can't do otherwise any more than I can defy gravity.
>>>> 
>>>> But before (or hopefully instead of) digging deeper into legalistic
>>>> arguments, fun though that might be, let's talk about substance.
>>>> 
>>>> For there may be something more to this than it appeared at first.
>>>> I thought the procedural error would have been easy to fix by re-doing
>>>> the decision properly, but it seems I was wrong.
>>>> 
>>>> The question at hand was not removal for a cause, but simply
>>>> determination of Ed's intent, not something that should subject of
>>>> heated debate, and if we made a mistake there, we'd have to correct it
>>>> anyway.
>>>> 
>>>> We should be extra careful in removing members in unclear
>>>> circumstances. We spent a long time working on the member removal
>>>> procedures; we should not create loopholes or back doors that allow
>>>> members to be removed quickly, with last-minute AOB-item
>>>> interpretations of ambiguous messages, and thus bypassing all the
>>>> safeguards we'd otherwise be applying.
>>>> 
>>>> And Ed's message was ambiguous: the very fact that we're discussing it now
>>>> and indeed have discussed its meaning from the start is enough to prove that.
>>>> 
>>>> Moreover, Ed has had the opportunity to confirm it if resignation from
>>>> NCSG was his intent. We know he receives emails, in fact he reacted to
>>>> this very case by confirming his resignation from the Council, but he
>>>> did not do so regarding his NCSG membership, even though just as
>>>> easily could have.
>>>> 
>>>> And in the past we've never removed anyone who's resignation message
>>>> has been in the least bit unclear, but always acted only after getting
>>>> unambiguous confirmation or lost contact for a *very* long time.
>>>> 
>>>> So the decision to remove him from NCSG was not only procedurally but
>>>> also substantively wrong.
>>>> 
>>>> Frankly I'm having hard time understanding why you're making a big
>>>> issue out of this and why you wanted it dealt with so quickly by
>>>> bringing it to the EC as last-minute AOB item and now fighting for it
>>>> tooth and nail. Regarding his councillorship there was a need to
>>>> resolve it urgently, indeed that's why I thought you brought it up in
>>>> the call, but his membership in NCSG has no significant impact in
>>>> anything that I can see, certainly there's no urgency in it that would
>>>> prevent us from dealing it with good time.
>>>> 
>>>> Or is there something I don't know going on? Why are you so eager to
>>>> get him removed so fast? Even if it is really only to express your
>>>> dissatisfaction in my performance, in this context it looks more than
>>>> a bit odd, when this really should be easy to do right.
>>>> 
>>>> Tapani
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:00:47PM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Tapani,
>>>>> 
>>>>> The greatest procedural error in all of this seems to be your presumption that you have the authority to overturn a decision of the EC.  Had you simply framed Ed's appointment as a replacement rather than an alternate in the first place (your error) we wouldn?t be having these problems.  Also, Ed?s resignation from NCSG was clearly made in writing on 11 July and was unambiguous about him leaving council.  For you to try to use your mistake in word selection to overturn the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation is rather remarkable.  There is nothing in the charter that gives the chair the authority to overturn EC decisions, procedural error or not.  You are illegitimately choosing an arbitrary binary as the only possible solutions to your error, but there is no basis in logic or in the charter for you to think you have the authority to set aside EC decisions at your discretion.  The charter gives you no such authority, especially not when you make the errors, that are now used to try to justify your over-turning the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation.  We explicitly agreed on the EC call last week that Ed?s language was explicit enough to interpret it as a complete resignation.  The point was discussed and decided.  Perhaps you should check the transcript if you don?t remember that.  That EC decision stands and it is another usurpation of this committee?s authority for you to attempt to over-turn it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Robin
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 8:52 PM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear Robin,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> With due respect I have to disagree.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We made two formally conflicting decisions, we could
>>>>>> not let them both stand. The first, Tatiana's appointment,
>>>>>> was clear and unquestionable, the second, Ed's status,
>>>>>> much less so for a number of reasons.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I don't think anybody would've been happy if I had
>>>>>> failed to appoint Tatiana because of the latter. Would you?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But, I agree that Ed's message was clear enough regarding
>>>>>> his council seat, and he has indeed just confirmed it
>>>>>> in a message to James Bladel, so there's no need to
>>>>>> debate that any more.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What we need to do, however, is to change Tatiana's
>>>>>> status from temporary alternate to temporary replacement.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jul 31 15:34, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Tapani,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The EC made a decision last week to accept Ed?s resignation and note it for the record.  You do not have the authority to over-turn the unanimous decision of the EC.  Decisions of the EC must be unanimous by all members of the committee.  After the committee has made a unanimous decision, the chair has no authority to ?undo? the decision, as you have attempted to do.  I don?t know what authority you think you have to over-turn a decision of the committee to accept his resignation from the NCSG.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Furthermore, there is nothing unclear or ambiguous about Ed?s resignation.  Surely people don?t have to list every single list they are a member of before their resignation can be accepted.  Ed's written resignation letter very explicitly said to remove him from ?ALL lists? and this unambiguously includes the membership list.  This resignation comes as no surprise as it was long foretold by Ed and others, and your attempts to revive his membership have gone unanswered by him.  The only one this resignation seems ?confused? to is you.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> As I've already noted, Ed's email is not exactly clear, his talk in
>>>>>>>> Johannesburg much less so (saying he intends to resign is not same as
>>>>>>>> resigning, after all he'd said it many times before).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And our AOB talk on Friday was confused, in particular we didn't make
>>>>>>>> at all clear if we're talking about him leaving just the council or
>>>>>>>> his NCSG membership or what. So I want to do it properly.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:22:42AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I?m not sure where all the confusion and mystery is coming from.  Ed told many people in Joburg he was resigning, including yourself, which we discussed on this list.  Then he sent a resignation email to you on July 11 instructing you to remove him from all lists, which was forwarded to the EC weeks ago.  We don?t need for the EC to ?agree" to his resignation for it to take effect.  We on the EC cannot keep a person on the membership roles when they have explicitly instructed us to remove them.  As Ed had resigned in writing on 11 July, Tatiana?s appointment should have been presented as a replacement instead of alternate to begin with.  Let?s just change it to replacement and get on our work.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joan,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, but first we'll have to work out Ed's removal properly,
>>>>>>>>>> and we do need a new decision, by current EC.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> What we could and probably should do is decide that Tatiana will
>>>>>>>>>> be appointed as replacement as soon as Ed's removal from the council
>>>>>>>>>> is formally confirmed, so there'd be no danger of a gap in our
>>>>>>>>>> council represenation.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:24:06AM -0400, Joan Kerr (joankerr at fbsc.org) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Tapani, All
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I am responding to this email, because I was part of the meeting on
>>>>>>>>>>> Friday.  I support Tatiana as replacement instead of alternate.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>>>>>>>>>> Virus-free.
>>>>>>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>>>>>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <
>>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Staff has pointed out that we made a procedural error in our Friday
>>>>>>>>>>>> meeting:
>>>>>>>>>>>> two decisions that are in conflict with each other, both cannot be let
>>>>>>>>>>>> stand.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifically, like proxy, temporary alternate can only be appointed for
>>>>>>>>>>>> a councillor who's formally still in office. When a councillor resigns,
>>>>>>>>>>>> proxy assignments and temporary alternate appointments are nullified,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and a temporary replacement (different from alternate) should be appointed.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So if we deem Ed to have resigned, Tatiana's appointment is void.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> This should not be hard to fix, but as time is short, I am going to let
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tatiana's appointment stand as it is and set our decision regarding Ed
>>>>>>>>>>>> aside, or rather consider the latter to be mere discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> The practical reason for this is obviously the need to have Tatiana
>>>>>>>>>>>> in council for the vote tomorrow and we don't have time to make new
>>>>>>>>>>>> decisions before then.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> There's also the formal point that member removal is a significant
>>>>>>>>>>>> decision, especially so when circumstances are unusual like now, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> non-trivial decisions should not be made as last-minute AOB items.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> This should not be too hard to do properly, especially if we can agree
>>>>>>>>>>>> on the list about Ed's status and replacement (changing Tatiana's
>>>>>>>>>>>> status from alternate to replacement), or otherwise let's put it on
>>>>>>>>>>>> next meeting agenda.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Joan Kerr,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Social Entrepreneur, Humanitarian
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> T: +1 (416) 907-0783
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Skype: joankerr_fbsc
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> fbsc.org, www.fbsc.eco
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Chair: Victory Garden Leadership Implementation Team
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Chair: IEEE Smart Villages Project, Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Chair: Agricultural Track, IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Chair: ICANN Not for Profit Operational Concerns Constituency
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Advisor, IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives Committee
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Advisor, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network, (CSAYN) Global
>>>>>>>>>>> Coordination Unit
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20170804/b4447c17/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: transcript_ncsgec_280717.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 249008 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20170804/b4447c17/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20170804/b4447c17/attachment-0001.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Sat Aug  5 19:49:46 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2017 19:49:46 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Procedural errors
In-Reply-To: <FDEC3B6D-96CF-4146-8BBF-CE378B8C917F@ipjustice.org>
References: <20170731160053.gq626irf4vhz2all@tarvainen.info>
 <7DF95579-DDC0-4D71-B444-44C83C2C0CE8@ipjustice.org>
 <20170731164733.xuuot7fl3uas55np@tarvainen.info>
 <1F7B5D16-FC15-46D4-8997-9D665AAC1738@ipjustice.org>
 <20170801035232.573225ti3kq2r7pl@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <B94A1E48-B695-45FD-896B-10A1734BD82E@ipjustice.org>
 <20170802112602.utwxc56kax4nv7vx@tarvainen.info>
 <E6D62A00-4241-4AAE-AF40-D34AB3AA68DE@ipjustice.org>
 <20170804123008.ks4d246tx7exqvw5@tarvainen.info>
 <FDEC3B6D-96CF-4146-8BBF-CE378B8C917F@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20170805164945.o5zzx2edpxayjt3u@tarvainen.info>

Dear Robin,

I did remove Ed from all NCSG's lists immediately when he so requested.

But before spending more time in documenting this, I must ask:

What on earth is going on here? What are you trying to do and why?
Why do you care about Ed's membership?

The whole thing does not make sense.

As I see it, there're basically two situations were the EC should
be involved regarding a member leaving the NCSG:
(1) when considering removal a member for a cause, and
(2) when a member complains about his or her treatment and
    asks the EC to intervene.

We're not talking about (1) here, and in case of a member leaving
voluntarily the NCSG the only person whose rights are potentially
being violated by inadequate handling of the process is the member in
question.

Members requesting to leave is routine, and they're regularly unclear
about whether they want to resign from NCSG or just unsubscribe the
mailing list(s). And I (or Maryam) routinely ask them to clarify and
don't remove their membership until they make it clear that's what
they want, occasionally waiting a long time for an answer. This case
should not be unusual, there should be no need for the EC to concern
itself with it. So I don't understand why you brought it up, let alone
why you're now fighting so hard about it.

You can't seriously claim you think I'm violating Ed's rights by
refusing to let him resign and that you're acting as his champion.

Indeed it is beginning to look as if you want to remove Ed from NCSG
against his will and to do so in a way that sidesteps due process and
all the safeguards in our charter and in the (still draft) member
removal procedures we've been working on.

I hope that is not actually the case, but appearances matter, and even
leaving room for suspicion of such is bad enough.

The only alternative explanation I can think of is that you're using
this, in itself trivial, case to get back at me from some past wrongs,
having gotten me into a situation that is apparently lose-lose for me:
either I risk violating Ed's rights by removing him against his will
(which we don't really know) or I risk EC's wrath by defying it's
decision that I in retrospect consider not only hurried and
ill-considered but flat out wrong.

As in addition to everything else, I can't see any harm to anybody in
leaving him in NCSG member list until he clarifies the situation,
whereas removing him would be much harder to undo if it turns out
he did not want to resign after all.

So, are you

(1) arguing that not removing Ed's NCSG membership immediately is
somehow so bad that I'm causing serious harm by delaying it; or

(2) making a point of principle that EC decisions are irreversible and
any delay in implementing them, let alone bringing them back to the EC
for reconsideration when I think a mistake was made, is fundamentally
wrong?

Thank you,

Tapani


On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 08:05:14AM -0700, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC (ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is) wrote:
> 
> Tapani,
> 
> Thank you for agreeing that you do not have the authority to overturn an EC decision, but are instead unilaterally refusing to implement the EC?s decision to accept Ed Morris? resignation from NCSG and that you are refusing to remove him from the membership and email lists.
> 
> Since you are holding up the implementation of the EC?s decision, I think your bringing the EC up to speed on what you have done in this matter is needed for us to decide what to do with your refusal.
> 
> 1.  What steps have you taken to resolve any perceived ambiguity about Ed?s resignation from NCSG and what is the status of any inquiry?
> 2.  What lists did you remove Ed from upon receiving Ed's email instructing you to remove him from ?all lists??  Any?
> 3.  How do you propose the EC decide to implement our decision to accept Ed's resignation?  Keeping in mind it is an EC decision, not a chair decision.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> > On Aug 4, 2017, at 5:30 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear Robin,
> > 
> > Thank you for the explanation. I'm still not quite sure I understand
> > where you're coming from, but perhaps we're getting closer.
> > 
> > First I had trouble understanding your complaint, because I thought I'd
> > done almost exactly what you ask: as soon as I became aware of the problem,
> > I notified the EC that we made a mistake we must fix. "Almost" because
> > I did let Tatiana's temporary alternate appointment stand without waiting
> > for the EC to reconsider it.
> > 
> > Apparently at least part of the issue is communication, I haven't expressed
> > myself clearly. When I said I'd put a decision aside, I didn't intend it to
> > mean I'll discard it, rather that I won't immediately implement what to me
> > seemed to be an obvious mistake and instead will bring the issue back to the
> > EC. Contrary to your claim, I explicitly chose *not* to implement the
> > decision about Ed before bringing it back to the EC. With Tatiana I
> > admittedly did, because time was short and it seemed less problematic.
> > 
> > I agree I could have phrased things better, now as well as any number of
> > times in the past I'm sure, more "hygge" fashion if you like. I will accept
> > chastisement in this regard and try to use more convivial wordings and
> > discussion style in the future.
> > 
> > But if the EC at any time makes another decision that seems to me to be a
> > simple mistake due to too much rush or whatever, I will do substantively the
> > same thing: bring it back to the EC before rushing to implementation. I think
> > I would be derelict of my duty if I didn't do that.
> > 
> > If the decision, whatever it is, is indeed obvious, redoing it properly
> > should not be a big deal.
> > 
> > 
> > Back to the issues at hand.
> > 
> > First, Tatiana's appointment.
> > 
> > You seem to be arguing there's no significant difference between a temporary
> > altenate and a temporary replacement and that I could simply have
> > reinterpreted the EC decision from alternate to replacement. If so, I must
> > disagree - then I would indeed have acted contrary to EC's explicit decision.
> > And in fact we could not have appointed her as a temporary replacement before
> > Ed's resignation from the council was confirmed.
> > 
> > Yes, I could have canceled her alternate appointment as soon as talk with
> > staff brought the problem to my attention (no, I did not make it up) and
> > waited for the EC to make a new decision, but time was short and I thought
> > the alternate appointment was in fact done properly.
> > 
> > What we could and in retrospect should have done is to appoint her as
> > temporary alternate then and, as a separate decision, decide to
> > appoint her as temporary replacement as soon as Ed's resignation from
> > the council would be confirmed.
> > 
> > Fortunately that is easy to fix: just do the latter decision now,
> > as I've already asked for you to do on the list. We really should
> > decide that before next Council meeting on August 24.
> > 
> > 
> > Second, Ed's status.
> > 
> > First I thought this would be easy as well. But clearly it is not.
> > Fortunately it's not urgent either, as far as I can see.
> > 
> > My real mistake was allowing it as a decision item in the first place.
> > 
> > For the EC actually has no right to make such decisions.
> > 
> > You're saying I'm refusing to accept Ed's resignation. If so, the only
> > person with standing to challenge it is Ed, nobody else - not you
> > (unless you're his attorney), not the EC.
> > 
> > As noted earlier, the issue is not removing him for a cause, which
> > would belong to the EC, but determination of his intent.
> > 
> > And maintaining membership data is responsibility of the Chair.
> > 
> > Under the supervision of the EC, yes. I have already invited you to
> > discuss the issue, seeking your advice before doing anything, and
> > in the end you have several means to exercise your supevision,
> > all the way down to removing me from office.
> > 
> > So, will not remove Ed from NCSG membership without further
> > discussion.
> > 
> > I have not decided what to do about it and remain open to persuasion.
> > 
> > But merely saying "it's already decided" won't cut it. A quick
> > last-minute AOB decision, arguably hard to distinguish from mere
> > discussion, does not count as supervision in my book.
> > 
> > And I would very much like to discuss the substance of the case in more
> > general terms, including if we should write down procedures for handling
> > this kind of situations in the future. As I said, I see no reason to rush.
> > 
> > Sincerely,
> > 
> > Tapani
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:49:54AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> >> 
> >> Tapani,
> >> 
> >> You are either missing or refusing to see the point: you are not a dictator to this committee.  The chair is supposed to carry out the duties UNDER THE SUPERVISION of the EC according to our charter.  You have routinely disregarded any supervision and done as you pleased, and in this case, in explicit contradiction to the decision of the EC and the request of the member seeking removal.
> >> 
> >> If you think there was a procedural problem with an EC decision that needs rectifying, you should come back to the committee and say ?hey, I made a mistake.  How should WE proceed?  Here is what I propose...?
> >> 
> >> But you didn?t (don?t) do that.  Instead you come back and say ?I decided this decision could not stand so I decided to overturn it do this other thing instead.?  And then implement your own unilateral decision without any supervision or opportunity by the EC to discuss your earlier procedural error and how WE might want to handle it.
> >> 
> >> You are again attempting to usurp the authority of the committee and replace the committee's judgment with your own unilateral decisions.  Minor procedural errors by your own creating do not grant you the authority to overturn EC decisions at your own unchecked discretion.  That is what you don?t seem to understand and what has been a consistent problem since you became you chair.
> >> 
> >> Robin
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> On Aug 2, 2017, at 4:26 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Dear Robin,
> >>> 
> >>> When I'm faced with two conflicting decisions to implement, I not
> >>> only can but I must choose which one to implement, if either.
> >>> I can't do otherwise any more than I can defy gravity.
> >>> 
> >>> But before (or hopefully instead of) digging deeper into legalistic
> >>> arguments, fun though that might be, let's talk about substance.
> >>> 
> >>> For there may be something more to this than it appeared at first.
> >>> I thought the procedural error would have been easy to fix by re-doing
> >>> the decision properly, but it seems I was wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> The question at hand was not removal for a cause, but simply
> >>> determination of Ed's intent, not something that should subject of
> >>> heated debate, and if we made a mistake there, we'd have to correct it
> >>> anyway.
> >>> 
> >>> We should be extra careful in removing members in unclear
> >>> circumstances. We spent a long time working on the member removal
> >>> procedures; we should not create loopholes or back doors that allow
> >>> members to be removed quickly, with last-minute AOB-item
> >>> interpretations of ambiguous messages, and thus bypassing all the
> >>> safeguards we'd otherwise be applying.
> >>> 
> >>> And Ed's message was ambiguous: the very fact that we're discussing it now
> >>> and indeed have discussed its meaning from the start is enough to prove that.
> >>> 
> >>> Moreover, Ed has had the opportunity to confirm it if resignation from
> >>> NCSG was his intent. We know he receives emails, in fact he reacted to
> >>> this very case by confirming his resignation from the Council, but he
> >>> did not do so regarding his NCSG membership, even though just as
> >>> easily could have.
> >>> 
> >>> And in the past we've never removed anyone who's resignation message
> >>> has been in the least bit unclear, but always acted only after getting
> >>> unambiguous confirmation or lost contact for a *very* long time.
> >>> 
> >>> So the decision to remove him from NCSG was not only procedurally but
> >>> also substantively wrong.
> >>> 
> >>> Frankly I'm having hard time understanding why you're making a big
> >>> issue out of this and why you wanted it dealt with so quickly by
> >>> bringing it to the EC as last-minute AOB item and now fighting for it
> >>> tooth and nail. Regarding his councillorship there was a need to
> >>> resolve it urgently, indeed that's why I thought you brought it up in
> >>> the call, but his membership in NCSG has no significant impact in
> >>> anything that I can see, certainly there's no urgency in it that would
> >>> prevent us from dealing it with good time.
> >>> 
> >>> Or is there something I don't know going on? Why are you so eager to
> >>> get him removed so fast? Even if it is really only to express your
> >>> dissatisfaction in my performance, in this context it looks more than
> >>> a bit odd, when this really should be easy to do right.
> >>> 
> >>> Tapani
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:00:47PM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> Tapani,
> >>>> 
> >>>> The greatest procedural error in all of this seems to be your presumption that you have the authority to overturn a decision of the EC.  Had you simply framed Ed's appointment as a replacement rather than an alternate in the first place (your error) we wouldn?t be having these problems.  Also, Ed?s resignation from NCSG was clearly made in writing on 11 July and was unambiguous about him leaving council.  For you to try to use your mistake in word selection to overturn the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation is rather remarkable.  There is nothing in the charter that gives the chair the authority to overturn EC decisions, procedural error or not.  You are illegitimately choosing an arbitrary binary as the only possible solutions to your error, but there is no basis in logic or in the charter for you to think you have the authority to set aside EC decisions at your discretion.  The charter gives you no such authority, especially not when you make the errors, that are now used to try to justify your over-turning the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation.  We explicitly agreed on the EC call last week that Ed?s language was explicit enough to interpret it as a complete resignation.  The point was discussed and decided.  Perhaps you should check the transcript if you don?t remember that.  That EC decision stands and it is another usurpation of this committee?s authority for you to attempt to over-turn it.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Robin
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 8:52 PM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Dear Robin,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> With due respect I have to disagree.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> We made two formally conflicting decisions, we could
> >>>>> not let them both stand. The first, Tatiana's appointment,
> >>>>> was clear and unquestionable, the second, Ed's status,
> >>>>> much less so for a number of reasons.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I don't think anybody would've been happy if I had
> >>>>> failed to appoint Tatiana because of the latter. Would you?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> But, I agree that Ed's message was clear enough regarding
> >>>>> his council seat, and he has indeed just confirmed it
> >>>>> in a message to James Bladel, so there's no need to
> >>>>> debate that any more.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> What we need to do, however, is to change Tatiana's
> >>>>> status from temporary alternate to temporary replacement.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Tapani
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Jul 31 15:34, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Tapani,
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> The EC made a decision last week to accept Ed?s resignation and note it for the record.  You do not have the authority to over-turn the unanimous decision of the EC.  Decisions of the EC must be unanimous by all members of the committee.  After the committee has made a unanimous decision, the chair has no authority to ?undo? the decision, as you have attempted to do.  I don?t know what authority you think you have to over-turn a decision of the committee to accept his resignation from the NCSG.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Furthermore, there is nothing unclear or ambiguous about Ed?s resignation.  Surely people don?t have to list every single list they are a member of before their resignation can be accepted.  Ed's written resignation letter very explicitly said to remove him from ?ALL lists? and this unambiguously includes the membership list.  This resignation comes as no surprise as it was long foretold by Ed and others, and your attempts to revive his membership have gone unanswered by him.  The only one this resignation seems ?confused? to is you.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Robin
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Hi Robin,
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> As I've already noted, Ed's email is not exactly clear, his talk in
> >>>>>>> Johannesburg much less so (saying he intends to resign is not same as
> >>>>>>> resigning, after all he'd said it many times before).
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> And our AOB talk on Friday was confused, in particular we didn't make
> >>>>>>> at all clear if we're talking about him leaving just the council or
> >>>>>>> his NCSG membership or what. So I want to do it properly.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Tapani
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:22:42AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> I?m not sure where all the confusion and mystery is coming from.  Ed told many people in Joburg he was resigning, including yourself, which we discussed on this list.  Then he sent a resignation email to you on July 11 instructing you to remove him from all lists, which was forwarded to the EC weeks ago.  We don?t need for the EC to ?agree" to his resignation for it to take effect.  We on the EC cannot keep a person on the membership roles when they have explicitly instructed us to remove them.  As Ed had resigned in writing on 11 July, Tatiana?s appointment should have been presented as a replacement instead of alternate to begin with.  Let?s just change it to replacement and get on our work.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>>>> Robin
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Joan,
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Thank you, but first we'll have to work out Ed's removal properly,
> >>>>>>>>> and we do need a new decision, by current EC.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> What we could and probably should do is decide that Tatiana will
> >>>>>>>>> be appointed as replacement as soon as Ed's removal from the council
> >>>>>>>>> is formally confirmed, so there'd be no danger of a gap in our
> >>>>>>>>> council represenation.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Tapani
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:24:06AM -0400, Joan Kerr (joankerr at fbsc.org) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Tapani, All
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> I am responding to this email, because I was part of the meeting on
> >>>>>>>>>> Friday.  I support Tatiana as replacement instead of alternate.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> >>>>>>>>>> Virus-free.
> >>>>>>>>>> www.avast.com
> >>>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> >>>>>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <
> >>>>>>>>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Staff has pointed out that we made a procedural error in our Friday
> >>>>>>>>>>> meeting:
> >>>>>>>>>>> two decisions that are in conflict with each other, both cannot be let
> >>>>>>>>>>> stand.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Specifically, like proxy, temporary alternate can only be appointed for
> >>>>>>>>>>> a councillor who's formally still in office. When a councillor resigns,
> >>>>>>>>>>> proxy assignments and temporary alternate appointments are nullified,
> >>>>>>>>>>> and a temporary replacement (different from alternate) should be appointed.
> >>>>>>>>>>> So if we deem Ed to have resigned, Tatiana's appointment is void.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> This should not be hard to fix, but as time is short, I am going to let
> >>>>>>>>>>> Tatiana's appointment stand as it is and set our decision regarding Ed
> >>>>>>>>>>> aside, or rather consider the latter to be mere discussion.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> The practical reason for this is obviously the need to have Tatiana
> >>>>>>>>>>> in council for the vote tomorrow and we don't have time to make new
> >>>>>>>>>>> decisions before then.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> There's also the formal point that member removal is a significant
> >>>>>>>>>>> decision, especially so when circumstances are unusual like now, and
> >>>>>>>>>>> non-trivial decisions should not be made as last-minute AOB items.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> This should not be too hard to do properly, especially if we can agree
> >>>>>>>>>>> on the list about Ed's status and replacement (changing Tatiana's
> >>>>>>>>>>> status from alternate to replacement), or otherwise let's put it on
> >>>>>>>>>>> next meeting agenda.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Joan Kerr,
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Social Entrepreneur, Humanitarian
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> T: +1 (416) 907-0783
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Skype: joankerr_fbsc
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> fbsc.org, www.fbsc.eco
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Chair: Victory Garden Leadership Implementation Team
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Chair: IEEE Smart Villages Project, Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Chair: Agricultural Track, IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Chair: ICANN Not for Profit Operational Concerns Constituency
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Advisor, IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives Committee
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Advisor, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network, (CSAYN) Global
> >>>>>>>>>> Coordination Unit
> > _______________________________________________
> > NCSG-EC mailing list
> > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From robin at ipjustice.org  Sat Aug  5 22:31:28 2017
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2017 12:31:28 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Procedural errors
In-Reply-To: <20170805164945.o5zzx2edpxayjt3u@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170731160053.gq626irf4vhz2all@tarvainen.info>
 <7DF95579-DDC0-4D71-B444-44C83C2C0CE8@ipjustice.org>
 <20170731164733.xuuot7fl3uas55np@tarvainen.info>
 <1F7B5D16-FC15-46D4-8997-9D665AAC1738@ipjustice.org>
 <20170801035232.573225ti3kq2r7pl@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <B94A1E48-B695-45FD-896B-10A1734BD82E@ipjustice.org>
 <20170802112602.utwxc56kax4nv7vx@tarvainen.info>
 <E6D62A00-4241-4AAE-AF40-D34AB3AA68DE@ipjustice.org>
 <20170804123008.ks4d246tx7exqvw5@tarvainen.info>
 <FDEC3B6D-96CF-4146-8BBF-CE378B8C917F@ipjustice.org>
 <20170805164945.o5zzx2edpxayjt3u@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <FA01F038-EE47-42B8-A5BA-3043A6A9CC95@ipjustice.org>

Tapani,

Which lists exactly did you remove him from when he instructed you to remove him from ?all lists??  

After receiving your email below, I checked our membership lists in the official database, and he is still listed as an active NCSG member and NCUC member in the database (see attached).  In fact, he has been sent 3 membership requests to ?check-in? to vote in the coming NCSG election, including a check-in request from only a few hours ago to him, although he has not checked-in as wishing to be an active member of NCSG.  So I?m confused when you say you did remove him from all lists.  Which ones and when?  And why not these?

Tapani, as I have stated before, my concern is for your abuse of authority in your execution of EC duties.  Here are a few examples from the last week alone:
Constantly shifting and contradictory explanations for refusing to implement EC decision; making procedural mistakes and then using those minor wording mistakes as pretext to set aside EC decisions you don?t agree with; refusal to tell the EC what you have done to resolve any ambiguity while simultaneously claiming you won?t implement the EC decision because there is ambiguity in your mind.

This whole matter should have been a simple, minor, "note for the record", as we have done in the past <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/2017-April/000086.html> when membership resignations have come in, and since the GNSO Council was on record as awaiting clarification <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-July/020193.html> from you about the resignation.  

The membership resignation is nearly a month old and you refuse to say what you?ve done to resolve any ambiguity, explain why you think it is ambiguous, or what communications have you received which lead you to believe the plain words of the resignation should not be followed, and this committee?s decision to note the resignation for the record should not implemented.  It appears like pointless games and procedural tricks over what is a simple procedural matter.

Tapani, you were wrong to overturn the EC decision, as you did in your communication to the GNSO Council on 30 July, and you?ve just been stubborn about admitting it, simply fixing your mistake, and moving forward on important matters.

Robin

Summary Timeline (mostly of this email thread, although links to other communications where referenced):

11 July - Tapani received written resignation <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/2017-July/000143.html> (which confirmed what had been foretold to many <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/2017-July/000137.html>) by member who requested to be removed from "all lists?.

17 July - GNSO Council notes it is waiting <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-July/020193.html> for clarification from Tapani on member's status

28 July - EC noted for the record, as is practice, that a membership resignation came in and we accepted it.  Tapani agreed to remove member from all lists, including membership list.

30 July - Tapani informed GNSO Council that Ed?s status remains formally unchanged <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-July/020239.html> (Tapani over-turned the EC decision without consultation or even cc to EC).

30 July - Tapani announced to EC he had set aside 7/28 EC decision to remove Ed from membership list due to his procedural mistake (Tapani called Tatiana?s appointment ?alternate? instead of ?replacement? and therefore he claims entitlement to set aside EC decision to note Ed's resignation for the record).  

2 August - Tapani announced the EC decision to accept the resignation was substantively and procedurally wrong and wouldn?t be implemented by him.

4 August - Tapani claimed he would be "derelict in his duty" if he implemented the EC decision to accept and note the resignation.

5 August - Big change in story: Tapani claimed he did in fact remove Ed from all lists when instructed (and thus implemented EC decision?)  
                  Note for record:  Ed remains on NCSG membership list in the official database as of this writing (see attached).





> On Aug 5, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> 
> Dear Robin,
> 
> I did remove Ed from all NCSG's lists immediately when he so requested.
> 
> But before spending more time in documenting this, I must ask:
> 
> What on earth is going on here? What are you trying to do and why?
> Why do you care about Ed's membership?
> 
> The whole thing does not make sense.
> 
> As I see it, there're basically two situations were the EC should
> be involved regarding a member leaving the NCSG:
> (1) when considering removal a member for a cause, and
> (2) when a member complains about his or her treatment and
>    asks the EC to intervene.
> 
> We're not talking about (1) here, and in case of a member leaving
> voluntarily the NCSG the only person whose rights are potentially
> being violated by inadequate handling of the process is the member in
> question.
> 
> Members requesting to leave is routine, and they're regularly unclear
> about whether they want to resign from NCSG or just unsubscribe the
> mailing list(s). And I (or Maryam) routinely ask them to clarify and
> don't remove their membership until they make it clear that's what
> they want, occasionally waiting a long time for an answer. This case
> should not be unusual, there should be no need for the EC to concern
> itself with it. So I don't understand why you brought it up, let alone
> why you're now fighting so hard about it.
> 
> You can't seriously claim you think I'm violating Ed's rights by
> refusing to let him resign and that you're acting as his champion.
> 
> Indeed it is beginning to look as if you want to remove Ed from NCSG
> against his will and to do so in a way that sidesteps due process and
> all the safeguards in our charter and in the (still draft) member
> removal procedures we've been working on.
> 
> I hope that is not actually the case, but appearances matter, and even
> leaving room for suspicion of such is bad enough.
> 
> The only alternative explanation I can think of is that you're using
> this, in itself trivial, case to get back at me from some past wrongs,
> having gotten me into a situation that is apparently lose-lose for me:
> either I risk violating Ed's rights by removing him against his will
> (which we don't really know) or I risk EC's wrath by defying it's
> decision that I in retrospect consider not only hurried and
> ill-considered but flat out wrong.
> 
> As in addition to everything else, I can't see any harm to anybody in
> leaving him in NCSG member list until he clarifies the situation,
> whereas removing him would be much harder to undo if it turns out
> he did not want to resign after all.
> 
> So, are you
> 
> (1) arguing that not removing Ed's NCSG membership immediately is
> somehow so bad that I'm causing serious harm by delaying it; or
> 
> (2) making a point of principle that EC decisions are irreversible and
> any delay in implementing them, let alone bringing them back to the EC
> for reconsideration when I think a mistake was made, is fundamentally
> wrong?
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Tapani
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 08:05:14AM -0700, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC (ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is) wrote:
>> 
>> Tapani,
>> 
>> Thank you for agreeing that you do not have the authority to overturn an EC decision, but are instead unilaterally refusing to implement the EC?s decision to accept Ed Morris? resignation from NCSG and that you are refusing to remove him from the membership and email lists.
>> 
>> Since you are holding up the implementation of the EC?s decision, I think your bringing the EC up to speed on what you have done in this matter is needed for us to decide what to do with your refusal.
>> 
>> 1.  What steps have you taken to resolve any perceived ambiguity about Ed?s resignation from NCSG and what is the status of any inquiry?
>> 2.  What lists did you remove Ed from upon receiving Ed's email instructing you to remove him from ?all lists??  Any?
>> 3.  How do you propose the EC decide to implement our decision to accept Ed's resignation?  Keeping in mind it is an EC decision, not a chair decision.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>>> On Aug 4, 2017, at 5:30 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Robin,
>>> 
>>> Thank you for the explanation. I'm still not quite sure I understand
>>> where you're coming from, but perhaps we're getting closer.
>>> 
>>> First I had trouble understanding your complaint, because I thought I'd
>>> done almost exactly what you ask: as soon as I became aware of the problem,
>>> I notified the EC that we made a mistake we must fix. "Almost" because
>>> I did let Tatiana's temporary alternate appointment stand without waiting
>>> for the EC to reconsider it.
>>> 
>>> Apparently at least part of the issue is communication, I haven't expressed
>>> myself clearly. When I said I'd put a decision aside, I didn't intend it to
>>> mean I'll discard it, rather that I won't immediately implement what to me
>>> seemed to be an obvious mistake and instead will bring the issue back to the
>>> EC. Contrary to your claim, I explicitly chose *not* to implement the
>>> decision about Ed before bringing it back to the EC. With Tatiana I
>>> admittedly did, because time was short and it seemed less problematic.
>>> 
>>> I agree I could have phrased things better, now as well as any number of
>>> times in the past I'm sure, more "hygge" fashion if you like. I will accept
>>> chastisement in this regard and try to use more convivial wordings and
>>> discussion style in the future.
>>> 
>>> But if the EC at any time makes another decision that seems to me to be a
>>> simple mistake due to too much rush or whatever, I will do substantively the
>>> same thing: bring it back to the EC before rushing to implementation. I think
>>> I would be derelict of my duty if I didn't do that.
>>> 
>>> If the decision, whatever it is, is indeed obvious, redoing it properly
>>> should not be a big deal.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Back to the issues at hand.
>>> 
>>> First, Tatiana's appointment.
>>> 
>>> You seem to be arguing there's no significant difference between a temporary
>>> altenate and a temporary replacement and that I could simply have
>>> reinterpreted the EC decision from alternate to replacement. If so, I must
>>> disagree - then I would indeed have acted contrary to EC's explicit decision.
>>> And in fact we could not have appointed her as a temporary replacement before
>>> Ed's resignation from the council was confirmed.
>>> 
>>> Yes, I could have canceled her alternate appointment as soon as talk with
>>> staff brought the problem to my attention (no, I did not make it up) and
>>> waited for the EC to make a new decision, but time was short and I thought
>>> the alternate appointment was in fact done properly.
>>> 
>>> What we could and in retrospect should have done is to appoint her as
>>> temporary alternate then and, as a separate decision, decide to
>>> appoint her as temporary replacement as soon as Ed's resignation from
>>> the council would be confirmed.
>>> 
>>> Fortunately that is easy to fix: just do the latter decision now,
>>> as I've already asked for you to do on the list. We really should
>>> decide that before next Council meeting on August 24.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Second, Ed's status.
>>> 
>>> First I thought this would be easy as well. But clearly it is not.
>>> Fortunately it's not urgent either, as far as I can see.
>>> 
>>> My real mistake was allowing it as a decision item in the first place.
>>> 
>>> For the EC actually has no right to make such decisions.
>>> 
>>> You're saying I'm refusing to accept Ed's resignation. If so, the only
>>> person with standing to challenge it is Ed, nobody else - not you
>>> (unless you're his attorney), not the EC.
>>> 
>>> As noted earlier, the issue is not removing him for a cause, which
>>> would belong to the EC, but determination of his intent.
>>> 
>>> And maintaining membership data is responsibility of the Chair.
>>> 
>>> Under the supervision of the EC, yes. I have already invited you to
>>> discuss the issue, seeking your advice before doing anything, and
>>> in the end you have several means to exercise your supevision,
>>> all the way down to removing me from office.
>>> 
>>> So, will not remove Ed from NCSG membership without further
>>> discussion.
>>> 
>>> I have not decided what to do about it and remain open to persuasion.
>>> 
>>> But merely saying "it's already decided" won't cut it. A quick
>>> last-minute AOB decision, arguably hard to distinguish from mere
>>> discussion, does not count as supervision in my book.
>>> 
>>> And I would very much like to discuss the substance of the case in more
>>> general terms, including if we should write down procedures for handling
>>> this kind of situations in the future. As I said, I see no reason to rush.
>>> 
>>> Sincerely,
>>> 
>>> Tapani
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:49:54AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Tapani,
>>>> 
>>>> You are either missing or refusing to see the point: you are not a dictator to this committee.  The chair is supposed to carry out the duties UNDER THE SUPERVISION of the EC according to our charter.  You have routinely disregarded any supervision and done as you pleased, and in this case, in explicit contradiction to the decision of the EC and the request of the member seeking removal.
>>>> 
>>>> If you think there was a procedural problem with an EC decision that needs rectifying, you should come back to the committee and say ?hey, I made a mistake.  How should WE proceed?  Here is what I propose...?
>>>> 
>>>> But you didn?t (don?t) do that.  Instead you come back and say ?I decided this decision could not stand so I decided to overturn it do this other thing instead.?  And then implement your own unilateral decision without any supervision or opportunity by the EC to discuss your earlier procedural error and how WE might want to handle it.
>>>> 
>>>> You are again attempting to usurp the authority of the committee and replace the committee's judgment with your own unilateral decisions.  Minor procedural errors by your own creating do not grant you the authority to overturn EC decisions at your own unchecked discretion.  That is what you don?t seem to understand and what has been a consistent problem since you became you chair.
>>>> 
>>>> Robin
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 2, 2017, at 4:26 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear Robin,
>>>>> 
>>>>> When I'm faced with two conflicting decisions to implement, I not
>>>>> only can but I must choose which one to implement, if either.
>>>>> I can't do otherwise any more than I can defy gravity.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But before (or hopefully instead of) digging deeper into legalistic
>>>>> arguments, fun though that might be, let's talk about substance.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For there may be something more to this than it appeared at first.
>>>>> I thought the procedural error would have been easy to fix by re-doing
>>>>> the decision properly, but it seems I was wrong.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The question at hand was not removal for a cause, but simply
>>>>> determination of Ed's intent, not something that should subject of
>>>>> heated debate, and if we made a mistake there, we'd have to correct it
>>>>> anyway.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We should be extra careful in removing members in unclear
>>>>> circumstances. We spent a long time working on the member removal
>>>>> procedures; we should not create loopholes or back doors that allow
>>>>> members to be removed quickly, with last-minute AOB-item
>>>>> interpretations of ambiguous messages, and thus bypassing all the
>>>>> safeguards we'd otherwise be applying.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And Ed's message was ambiguous: the very fact that we're discussing it now
>>>>> and indeed have discussed its meaning from the start is enough to prove that.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Moreover, Ed has had the opportunity to confirm it if resignation from
>>>>> NCSG was his intent. We know he receives emails, in fact he reacted to
>>>>> this very case by confirming his resignation from the Council, but he
>>>>> did not do so regarding his NCSG membership, even though just as
>>>>> easily could have.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And in the past we've never removed anyone who's resignation message
>>>>> has been in the least bit unclear, but always acted only after getting
>>>>> unambiguous confirmation or lost contact for a *very* long time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So the decision to remove him from NCSG was not only procedurally but
>>>>> also substantively wrong.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Frankly I'm having hard time understanding why you're making a big
>>>>> issue out of this and why you wanted it dealt with so quickly by
>>>>> bringing it to the EC as last-minute AOB item and now fighting for it
>>>>> tooth and nail. Regarding his councillorship there was a need to
>>>>> resolve it urgently, indeed that's why I thought you brought it up in
>>>>> the call, but his membership in NCSG has no significant impact in
>>>>> anything that I can see, certainly there's no urgency in it that would
>>>>> prevent us from dealing it with good time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or is there something I don't know going on? Why are you so eager to
>>>>> get him removed so fast? Even if it is really only to express your
>>>>> dissatisfaction in my performance, in this context it looks more than
>>>>> a bit odd, when this really should be easy to do right.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tapani
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:00:47PM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Tapani,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The greatest procedural error in all of this seems to be your presumption that you have the authority to overturn a decision of the EC.  Had you simply framed Ed's appointment as a replacement rather than an alternate in the first place (your error) we wouldn?t be having these problems.  Also, Ed?s resignation from NCSG was clearly made in writing on 11 July and was unambiguous about him leaving council.  For you to try to use your mistake in word selection to overturn the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation is rather remarkable.  There is nothing in the charter that gives the chair the authority to overturn EC decisions, procedural error or not.  You are illegitimately choosing an arbitrary binary as the only possible solutions to your error, but there is no basis in logic or in the charter for you to think you have the authority to set aside EC decisions at your discretion.  The charter gives you no such authority, especially not when you make the errors, that are now used to try to justify your over-turning the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation.  We explicitly agreed on the EC call last week that Ed?s language was explicit enough to interpret it as a complete resignation.  The point was discussed and decided.  Perhaps you should check the transcript if you don?t remember that.  That EC decision stands and it is another usurpation of this committee?s authority for you to attempt to over-turn it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 8:52 PM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear Robin,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> With due respect I have to disagree.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We made two formally conflicting decisions, we could
>>>>>>> not let them both stand. The first, Tatiana's appointment,
>>>>>>> was clear and unquestionable, the second, Ed's status,
>>>>>>> much less so for a number of reasons.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I don't think anybody would've been happy if I had
>>>>>>> failed to appoint Tatiana because of the latter. Would you?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> But, I agree that Ed's message was clear enough regarding
>>>>>>> his council seat, and he has indeed just confirmed it
>>>>>>> in a message to James Bladel, so there's no need to
>>>>>>> debate that any more.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What we need to do, however, is to change Tatiana's
>>>>>>> status from temporary alternate to temporary replacement.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Jul 31 15:34, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Tapani,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The EC made a decision last week to accept Ed?s resignation and note it for the record.  You do not have the authority to over-turn the unanimous decision of the EC.  Decisions of the EC must be unanimous by all members of the committee.  After the committee has made a unanimous decision, the chair has no authority to ?undo? the decision, as you have attempted to do.  I don?t know what authority you think you have to over-turn a decision of the committee to accept his resignation from the NCSG.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Furthermore, there is nothing unclear or ambiguous about Ed?s resignation.  Surely people don?t have to list every single list they are a member of before their resignation can be accepted.  Ed's written resignation letter very explicitly said to remove him from ?ALL lists? and this unambiguously includes the membership list.  This resignation comes as no surprise as it was long foretold by Ed and others, and your attempts to revive his membership have gone unanswered by him.  The only one this resignation seems ?confused? to is you.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> As I've already noted, Ed's email is not exactly clear, his talk in
>>>>>>>>> Johannesburg much less so (saying he intends to resign is not same as
>>>>>>>>> resigning, after all he'd said it many times before).
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> And our AOB talk on Friday was confused, in particular we didn't make
>>>>>>>>> at all clear if we're talking about him leaving just the council or
>>>>>>>>> his NCSG membership or what. So I want to do it properly.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:22:42AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I?m not sure where all the confusion and mystery is coming from.  Ed told many people in Joburg he was resigning, including yourself, which we discussed on this list.  Then he sent a resignation email to you on July 11 instructing you to remove him from all lists, which was forwarded to the EC weeks ago.  We don?t need for the EC to ?agree" to his resignation for it to take effect.  We on the EC cannot keep a person on the membership roles when they have explicitly instructed us to remove them.  As Ed had resigned in writing on 11 July, Tatiana?s appointment should have been presented as a replacement instead of alternate to begin with.  Let?s just change it to replacement and get on our work.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joan,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, but first we'll have to work out Ed's removal properly,
>>>>>>>>>>> and we do need a new decision, by current EC.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> What we could and probably should do is decide that Tatiana will
>>>>>>>>>>> be appointed as replacement as soon as Ed's removal from the council
>>>>>>>>>>> is formally confirmed, so there'd be no danger of a gap in our
>>>>>>>>>>> council represenation.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:24:06AM -0400, Joan Kerr (joankerr at fbsc.org) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Tapani, All
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am responding to this email, because I was part of the meeting on
>>>>>>>>>>>> Friday.  I support Tatiana as replacement instead of alternate.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Virus-free.
>>>>>>>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <
>>>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Staff has pointed out that we made a procedural error in our Friday
>>>>>>>>>>>>> meeting:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> two decisions that are in conflict with each other, both cannot be let
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifically, like proxy, temporary alternate can only be appointed for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a councillor who's formally still in office. When a councillor resigns,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proxy assignments and temporary alternate appointments are nullified,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a temporary replacement (different from alternate) should be appointed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if we deem Ed to have resigned, Tatiana's appointment is void.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This should not be hard to fix, but as time is short, I am going to let
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tatiana's appointment stand as it is and set our decision regarding Ed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aside, or rather consider the latter to be mere discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The practical reason for this is obviously the need to have Tatiana
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in council for the vote tomorrow and we don't have time to make new
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decisions before then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's also the formal point that member removal is a significant
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision, especially so when circumstances are unusual like now, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-trivial decisions should not be made as last-minute AOB items.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This should not be too hard to do properly, especially if we can agree
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the list about Ed's status and replacement (changing Tatiana's
>>>>>>>>>>>>> status from alternate to replacement), or otherwise let's put it on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> next meeting agenda.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joan Kerr,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Social Entrepreneur, Humanitarian
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> T: +1 (416) 907-0783
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Skype: joankerr_fbsc
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> fbsc.org, www.fbsc.eco
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chair: Victory Garden Leadership Implementation Team
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chair: IEEE Smart Villages Project, Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chair: Agricultural Track, IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chair: ICANN Not for Profit Operational Concerns Constituency
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Advisor, IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives Committee
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Advisor, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network, (CSAYN) Global
>>>>>>>>>>>> Coordination Unit
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20170805/e9d3b648/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Screen Shot 2017-08-05 at 9.53.26 AM.png
Type: image/png
Size: 236979 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20170805/e9d3b648/attachment.png>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Sun Aug  6 09:29:41 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 09:29:41 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Procedural errors
In-Reply-To: <FA01F038-EE47-42B8-A5BA-3043A6A9CC95@ipjustice.org>
References: <20170731164733.xuuot7fl3uas55np@tarvainen.info>
 <1F7B5D16-FC15-46D4-8997-9D665AAC1738@ipjustice.org>
 <20170801035232.573225ti3kq2r7pl@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <B94A1E48-B695-45FD-896B-10A1734BD82E@ipjustice.org>
 <20170802112602.utwxc56kax4nv7vx@tarvainen.info>
 <E6D62A00-4241-4AAE-AF40-D34AB3AA68DE@ipjustice.org>
 <20170804123008.ks4d246tx7exqvw5@tarvainen.info>
 <FDEC3B6D-96CF-4146-8BBF-CE378B8C917F@ipjustice.org>
 <20170805164945.o5zzx2edpxayjt3u@tarvainen.info>
 <FA01F038-EE47-42B8-A5BA-3043A6A9CC95@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20170806062941.a6ypc7zejw3sygsm@tarvainen.info>

Dear Robin,

I removed him from all mailing lists in lists.ncsg.is he was still on
as well as ncsg-discuss, but not from the member database. Sending him
the check-in messages was of course an automatic consequence of that.

This is not really leading us anywhere, but to recap:

* The word "lists" is ambiguous in this context, it is frequently
  used to refer to mailing lists only, not to membership.
  (I realize I accidentally committed the same ambiguity in my
  last message, when I said I'd removed him from all lists.
  Apologies for that.)

* The reason given in his message, lack of time due to a new job, does
  not suggest any need to resign from NCSG (we have many members
  who've chosen to remain members even though they have no time for
  active participation and have unsubscribed all mailing lists).

* If Ed had wanted to resign he could have said so explicitly.
  Moreover, after our call and my message to James Bladel he did
  confirm his resignation from the council but not from NCSG, even
  though he clearly could have.

* Ed's possible voluntary resignation from the NCSG is not up to the
  EC to decide, nor the Chair, but Ed himself only. As long has he
  hasn't communicated it explicitly, and we've never before considered
  that vague a message explicit enough, he hasn't resigned.

* We don't know the reasons for Ed's very limited communication since
  Joburg, but there could be several, illness, technical difficulties,
  or simply lack of time. I don't see any reason not to wait until
  they're over and he can clarify his intentions.

* When in doubt, it's better to err on the side of caution and
  postpone hard-to-reverse actions, especially when postponing
  them has no foreseeable harmful effects.

* I definitely made a mistake, arguably several, but not the one
  you're saying. I don't see what contradictory explanations I've
  given, but the situation did change after Ed sent his message to
  James Bladel resolving his councillorship issue (which was the only
  real problem here as far as I can see). And while at first I did
  think this would be a simple thing to correct, just redo the
  decision properly, but after you made a big issue I out of it I had
  to rethink, and I'm grateful you did because it clearly prevented us
  from making a mistake.

* I consider the decision on our last EC call erroneous for a number of
  reasons, but I also note it did not specify a time limit.
  So formally I'm now only delaying its implementation until I am sure
  it is the right thing to do.

* Consequently, I will not remove Ed from NCSG membership until
  either he clarifies that's what he wants or the EC makes a
  decision to correct me or to remove him for a cause.
  Or until someone otherwise convinces me I'm wrong (wouldn't be
  the first time).

As for me "refusing to tell the EC" something, you are not the EC.

If you want the EC to act, ask me questions, request me to do
something, chastise me or whatever, please make a motion to that
effect. I will be happy to put it on the agenda for our next call, or
accept a decision made on the list if consensus can be found here.

I agree though that we are really just wasting time here on a small
issue that will naturally resolve itself in time anyway. But if you
want to make an example of it, a precedent on how to deal with Chair's
alleged abuse of power if you will, so be it.

Sincerely,

Tapani



On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 12:31:28PM -0700, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC (ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is) wrote:
> 
> Tapani,
> 
> Which lists exactly did you remove him from when he instructed you to remove him from ?all lists??  
> 
> After receiving your email below, I checked our membership lists in the official database, and he is still listed as an active NCSG member and NCUC member in the database (see attached).  In fact, he has been sent 3 membership requests to ?check-in? to vote in the coming NCSG election, including a check-in request from only a few hours ago to him, although he has not checked-in as wishing to be an active member of NCSG.  So I?m confused when you say you did remove him from all lists.  Which ones and when?  And why not these?
> 
> Tapani, as I have stated before, my concern is for your abuse of authority in your execution of EC duties.  Here are a few examples from the last week alone:
> Constantly shifting and contradictory explanations for refusing to implement EC decision; making procedural mistakes and then using those minor wording mistakes as pretext to set aside EC decisions you don?t agree with; refusal to tell the EC what you have done to resolve any ambiguity while simultaneously claiming you won?t implement the EC decision because there is ambiguity in your mind.
> 
> This whole matter should have been a simple, minor, "note for the record", as we have done in the past <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/2017-April/000086.html> when membership resignations have come in, and since the GNSO Council was on record as awaiting clarification <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-July/020193.html> from you about the resignation.  
> 
> The membership resignation is nearly a month old and you refuse to say what you?ve done to resolve any ambiguity, explain why you think it is ambiguous, or what communications have you received which lead you to believe the plain words of the resignation should not be followed, and this committee?s decision to note the resignation for the record should not implemented.  It appears like pointless games and procedural tricks over what is a simple procedural matter.
> 
> Tapani, you were wrong to overturn the EC decision, as you did in your communication to the GNSO Council on 30 July, and you?ve just been stubborn about admitting it, simply fixing your mistake, and moving forward on important matters.
> 
> Robin
> 
> Summary Timeline (mostly of this email thread, although links to other communications where referenced):
> 
> 11 July - Tapani received written resignation <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/2017-July/000143.html> (which confirmed what had been foretold to many <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/2017-July/000137.html>) by member who requested to be removed from "all lists?.
> 
> 17 July - GNSO Council notes it is waiting <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-July/020193.html> for clarification from Tapani on member's status
> 
> 28 July - EC noted for the record, as is practice, that a membership resignation came in and we accepted it.  Tapani agreed to remove member from all lists, including membership list.
> 
> 30 July - Tapani informed GNSO Council that Ed?s status remains formally unchanged <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-July/020239.html> (Tapani over-turned the EC decision without consultation or even cc to EC).
> 
> 30 July - Tapani announced to EC he had set aside 7/28 EC decision to remove Ed from membership list due to his procedural mistake (Tapani called Tatiana?s appointment ?alternate? instead of ?replacement? and therefore he claims entitlement to set aside EC decision to note Ed's resignation for the record).  
> 
> 2 August - Tapani announced the EC decision to accept the resignation was substantively and procedurally wrong and wouldn?t be implemented by him.
> 
> 4 August - Tapani claimed he would be "derelict in his duty" if he implemented the EC decision to accept and note the resignation.
> 
> 5 August - Big change in story: Tapani claimed he did in fact remove Ed from all lists when instructed (and thus implemented EC decision?)  
>                   Note for record:  Ed remains on NCSG membership list in the official database as of this writing (see attached).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > On Aug 5, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear Robin,
> > 
> > I did remove Ed from all NCSG's lists immediately when he so requested.
> > 
> > But before spending more time in documenting this, I must ask:
> > 
> > What on earth is going on here? What are you trying to do and why?
> > Why do you care about Ed's membership?
> > 
> > The whole thing does not make sense.
> > 
> > As I see it, there're basically two situations were the EC should
> > be involved regarding a member leaving the NCSG:
> > (1) when considering removal a member for a cause, and
> > (2) when a member complains about his or her treatment and
> >    asks the EC to intervene.
> > 
> > We're not talking about (1) here, and in case of a member leaving
> > voluntarily the NCSG the only person whose rights are potentially
> > being violated by inadequate handling of the process is the member in
> > question.
> > 
> > Members requesting to leave is routine, and they're regularly unclear
> > about whether they want to resign from NCSG or just unsubscribe the
> > mailing list(s). And I (or Maryam) routinely ask them to clarify and
> > don't remove their membership until they make it clear that's what
> > they want, occasionally waiting a long time for an answer. This case
> > should not be unusual, there should be no need for the EC to concern
> > itself with it. So I don't understand why you brought it up, let alone
> > why you're now fighting so hard about it.
> > 
> > You can't seriously claim you think I'm violating Ed's rights by
> > refusing to let him resign and that you're acting as his champion.
> > 
> > Indeed it is beginning to look as if you want to remove Ed from NCSG
> > against his will and to do so in a way that sidesteps due process and
> > all the safeguards in our charter and in the (still draft) member
> > removal procedures we've been working on.
> > 
> > I hope that is not actually the case, but appearances matter, and even
> > leaving room for suspicion of such is bad enough.
> > 
> > The only alternative explanation I can think of is that you're using
> > this, in itself trivial, case to get back at me from some past wrongs,
> > having gotten me into a situation that is apparently lose-lose for me:
> > either I risk violating Ed's rights by removing him against his will
> > (which we don't really know) or I risk EC's wrath by defying it's
> > decision that I in retrospect consider not only hurried and
> > ill-considered but flat out wrong.
> > 
> > As in addition to everything else, I can't see any harm to anybody in
> > leaving him in NCSG member list until he clarifies the situation,
> > whereas removing him would be much harder to undo if it turns out
> > he did not want to resign after all.
> > 
> > So, are you
> > 
> > (1) arguing that not removing Ed's NCSG membership immediately is
> > somehow so bad that I'm causing serious harm by delaying it; or
> > 
> > (2) making a point of principle that EC decisions are irreversible and
> > any delay in implementing them, let alone bringing them back to the EC
> > for reconsideration when I think a mistake was made, is fundamentally
> > wrong?
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > 
> > Tapani
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 08:05:14AM -0700, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC (ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is) wrote:
> >> 
> >> Tapani,
> >> 
> >> Thank you for agreeing that you do not have the authority to overturn an EC decision, but are instead unilaterally refusing to implement the EC?s decision to accept Ed Morris? resignation from NCSG and that you are refusing to remove him from the membership and email lists.
> >> 
> >> Since you are holding up the implementation of the EC?s decision, I think your bringing the EC up to speed on what you have done in this matter is needed for us to decide what to do with your refusal.
> >> 
> >> 1.  What steps have you taken to resolve any perceived ambiguity about Ed?s resignation from NCSG and what is the status of any inquiry?
> >> 2.  What lists did you remove Ed from upon receiving Ed's email instructing you to remove him from ?all lists??  Any?
> >> 3.  How do you propose the EC decide to implement our decision to accept Ed's resignation?  Keeping in mind it is an EC decision, not a chair decision.
> >> 
> >> Thanks,
> >> Robin
> >> 
> >>> On Aug 4, 2017, at 5:30 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Dear Robin,
> >>> 
> >>> Thank you for the explanation. I'm still not quite sure I understand
> >>> where you're coming from, but perhaps we're getting closer.
> >>> 
> >>> First I had trouble understanding your complaint, because I thought I'd
> >>> done almost exactly what you ask: as soon as I became aware of the problem,
> >>> I notified the EC that we made a mistake we must fix. "Almost" because
> >>> I did let Tatiana's temporary alternate appointment stand without waiting
> >>> for the EC to reconsider it.
> >>> 
> >>> Apparently at least part of the issue is communication, I haven't expressed
> >>> myself clearly. When I said I'd put a decision aside, I didn't intend it to
> >>> mean I'll discard it, rather that I won't immediately implement what to me
> >>> seemed to be an obvious mistake and instead will bring the issue back to the
> >>> EC. Contrary to your claim, I explicitly chose *not* to implement the
> >>> decision about Ed before bringing it back to the EC. With Tatiana I
> >>> admittedly did, because time was short and it seemed less problematic.
> >>> 
> >>> I agree I could have phrased things better, now as well as any number of
> >>> times in the past I'm sure, more "hygge" fashion if you like. I will accept
> >>> chastisement in this regard and try to use more convivial wordings and
> >>> discussion style in the future.
> >>> 
> >>> But if the EC at any time makes another decision that seems to me to be a
> >>> simple mistake due to too much rush or whatever, I will do substantively the
> >>> same thing: bring it back to the EC before rushing to implementation. I think
> >>> I would be derelict of my duty if I didn't do that.
> >>> 
> >>> If the decision, whatever it is, is indeed obvious, redoing it properly
> >>> should not be a big deal.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Back to the issues at hand.
> >>> 
> >>> First, Tatiana's appointment.
> >>> 
> >>> You seem to be arguing there's no significant difference between a temporary
> >>> altenate and a temporary replacement and that I could simply have
> >>> reinterpreted the EC decision from alternate to replacement. If so, I must
> >>> disagree - then I would indeed have acted contrary to EC's explicit decision.
> >>> And in fact we could not have appointed her as a temporary replacement before
> >>> Ed's resignation from the council was confirmed.
> >>> 
> >>> Yes, I could have canceled her alternate appointment as soon as talk with
> >>> staff brought the problem to my attention (no, I did not make it up) and
> >>> waited for the EC to make a new decision, but time was short and I thought
> >>> the alternate appointment was in fact done properly.
> >>> 
> >>> What we could and in retrospect should have done is to appoint her as
> >>> temporary alternate then and, as a separate decision, decide to
> >>> appoint her as temporary replacement as soon as Ed's resignation from
> >>> the council would be confirmed.
> >>> 
> >>> Fortunately that is easy to fix: just do the latter decision now,
> >>> as I've already asked for you to do on the list. We really should
> >>> decide that before next Council meeting on August 24.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Second, Ed's status.
> >>> 
> >>> First I thought this would be easy as well. But clearly it is not.
> >>> Fortunately it's not urgent either, as far as I can see.
> >>> 
> >>> My real mistake was allowing it as a decision item in the first place.
> >>> 
> >>> For the EC actually has no right to make such decisions.
> >>> 
> >>> You're saying I'm refusing to accept Ed's resignation. If so, the only
> >>> person with standing to challenge it is Ed, nobody else - not you
> >>> (unless you're his attorney), not the EC.
> >>> 
> >>> As noted earlier, the issue is not removing him for a cause, which
> >>> would belong to the EC, but determination of his intent.
> >>> 
> >>> And maintaining membership data is responsibility of the Chair.
> >>> 
> >>> Under the supervision of the EC, yes. I have already invited you to
> >>> discuss the issue, seeking your advice before doing anything, and
> >>> in the end you have several means to exercise your supevision,
> >>> all the way down to removing me from office.
> >>> 
> >>> So, will not remove Ed from NCSG membership without further
> >>> discussion.
> >>> 
> >>> I have not decided what to do about it and remain open to persuasion.
> >>> 
> >>> But merely saying "it's already decided" won't cut it. A quick
> >>> last-minute AOB decision, arguably hard to distinguish from mere
> >>> discussion, does not count as supervision in my book.
> >>> 
> >>> And I would very much like to discuss the substance of the case in more
> >>> general terms, including if we should write down procedures for handling
> >>> this kind of situations in the future. As I said, I see no reason to rush.
> >>> 
> >>> Sincerely,
> >>> 
> >>> Tapani
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:49:54AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> Tapani,
> >>>> 
> >>>> You are either missing or refusing to see the point: you are not a dictator to this committee.  The chair is supposed to carry out the duties UNDER THE SUPERVISION of the EC according to our charter.  You have routinely disregarded any supervision and done as you pleased, and in this case, in explicit contradiction to the decision of the EC and the request of the member seeking removal.
> >>>> 
> >>>> If you think there was a procedural problem with an EC decision that needs rectifying, you should come back to the committee and say ?hey, I made a mistake.  How should WE proceed?  Here is what I propose...?
> >>>> 
> >>>> But you didn?t (don?t) do that.  Instead you come back and say ?I decided this decision could not stand so I decided to overturn it do this other thing instead.?  And then implement your own unilateral decision without any supervision or opportunity by the EC to discuss your earlier procedural error and how WE might want to handle it.
> >>>> 
> >>>> You are again attempting to usurp the authority of the committee and replace the committee's judgment with your own unilateral decisions.  Minor procedural errors by your own creating do not grant you the authority to overturn EC decisions at your own unchecked discretion.  That is what you don?t seem to understand and what has been a consistent problem since you became you chair.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Robin
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>>> On Aug 2, 2017, at 4:26 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Dear Robin,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> When I'm faced with two conflicting decisions to implement, I not
> >>>>> only can but I must choose which one to implement, if either.
> >>>>> I can't do otherwise any more than I can defy gravity.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> But before (or hopefully instead of) digging deeper into legalistic
> >>>>> arguments, fun though that might be, let's talk about substance.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> For there may be something more to this than it appeared at first.
> >>>>> I thought the procedural error would have been easy to fix by re-doing
> >>>>> the decision properly, but it seems I was wrong.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The question at hand was not removal for a cause, but simply
> >>>>> determination of Ed's intent, not something that should subject of
> >>>>> heated debate, and if we made a mistake there, we'd have to correct it
> >>>>> anyway.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> We should be extra careful in removing members in unclear
> >>>>> circumstances. We spent a long time working on the member removal
> >>>>> procedures; we should not create loopholes or back doors that allow
> >>>>> members to be removed quickly, with last-minute AOB-item
> >>>>> interpretations of ambiguous messages, and thus bypassing all the
> >>>>> safeguards we'd otherwise be applying.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> And Ed's message was ambiguous: the very fact that we're discussing it now
> >>>>> and indeed have discussed its meaning from the start is enough to prove that.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Moreover, Ed has had the opportunity to confirm it if resignation from
> >>>>> NCSG was his intent. We know he receives emails, in fact he reacted to
> >>>>> this very case by confirming his resignation from the Council, but he
> >>>>> did not do so regarding his NCSG membership, even though just as
> >>>>> easily could have.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> And in the past we've never removed anyone who's resignation message
> >>>>> has been in the least bit unclear, but always acted only after getting
> >>>>> unambiguous confirmation or lost contact for a *very* long time.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> So the decision to remove him from NCSG was not only procedurally but
> >>>>> also substantively wrong.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Frankly I'm having hard time understanding why you're making a big
> >>>>> issue out of this and why you wanted it dealt with so quickly by
> >>>>> bringing it to the EC as last-minute AOB item and now fighting for it
> >>>>> tooth and nail. Regarding his councillorship there was a need to
> >>>>> resolve it urgently, indeed that's why I thought you brought it up in
> >>>>> the call, but his membership in NCSG has no significant impact in
> >>>>> anything that I can see, certainly there's no urgency in it that would
> >>>>> prevent us from dealing it with good time.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Or is there something I don't know going on? Why are you so eager to
> >>>>> get him removed so fast? Even if it is really only to express your
> >>>>> dissatisfaction in my performance, in this context it looks more than
> >>>>> a bit odd, when this really should be easy to do right.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Tapani
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:00:47PM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Tapani,
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> The greatest procedural error in all of this seems to be your presumption that you have the authority to overturn a decision of the EC.  Had you simply framed Ed's appointment as a replacement rather than an alternate in the first place (your error) we wouldn?t be having these problems.  Also, Ed?s resignation from NCSG was clearly made in writing on 11 July and was unambiguous about him leaving council.  For you to try to use your mistake in word selection to overturn the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation is rather remarkable.  There is nothing in the charter that gives the chair the authority to overturn EC decisions, procedural error or not.  You are illegitimately choosing an arbitrary binary as the only possible solutions to your error, but there is no basis in logic or in the charter for you to think you have the authority to set aside EC decisions at your discretion.  The charter gives you no such authority, especially not when you make the errors, that are now used to try to justify your over-turning the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation.  We explicitly agreed on the EC call last week that Ed?s language was explicit enough to interpret it as a complete resignation.  The point was discussed and decided.  Perhaps you should check the transcript if you don?t remember that.  That EC decision stands and it is another usurpation of this committee?s authority for you to attempt to over-turn it.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Robin
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 8:52 PM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Dear Robin,
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> With due respect I have to disagree.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> We made two formally conflicting decisions, we could
> >>>>>>> not let them both stand. The first, Tatiana's appointment,
> >>>>>>> was clear and unquestionable, the second, Ed's status,
> >>>>>>> much less so for a number of reasons.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> I don't think anybody would've been happy if I had
> >>>>>>> failed to appoint Tatiana because of the latter. Would you?
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> But, I agree that Ed's message was clear enough regarding
> >>>>>>> his council seat, and he has indeed just confirmed it
> >>>>>>> in a message to James Bladel, so there's no need to
> >>>>>>> debate that any more.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> What we need to do, however, is to change Tatiana's
> >>>>>>> status from temporary alternate to temporary replacement.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> Tapani
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> On Jul 31 15:34, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Tapani,
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> The EC made a decision last week to accept Ed?s resignation and note it for the record.  You do not have the authority to over-turn the unanimous decision of the EC.  Decisions of the EC must be unanimous by all members of the committee.  After the committee has made a unanimous decision, the chair has no authority to ?undo? the decision, as you have attempted to do.  I don?t know what authority you think you have to over-turn a decision of the committee to accept his resignation from the NCSG.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Furthermore, there is nothing unclear or ambiguous about Ed?s resignation.  Surely people don?t have to list every single list they are a member of before their resignation can be accepted.  Ed's written resignation letter very explicitly said to remove him from ?ALL lists? and this unambiguously includes the membership list.  This resignation comes as no surprise as it was long foretold by Ed and others, and your attempts to revive his membership have gone unanswered by him.  The only one this resignation seems ?confused? to is you.
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Robin
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Robin,
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> As I've already noted, Ed's email is not exactly clear, his talk in
> >>>>>>>>> Johannesburg much less so (saying he intends to resign is not same as
> >>>>>>>>> resigning, after all he'd said it many times before).
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> And our AOB talk on Friday was confused, in particular we didn't make
> >>>>>>>>> at all clear if we're talking about him leaving just the council or
> >>>>>>>>> his NCSG membership or what. So I want to do it properly.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Tapani
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:22:42AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> I?m not sure where all the confusion and mystery is coming from.  Ed told many people in Joburg he was resigning, including yourself, which we discussed on this list.  Then he sent a resignation email to you on July 11 instructing you to remove him from all lists, which was forwarded to the EC weeks ago.  We don?t need for the EC to ?agree" to his resignation for it to take effect.  We on the EC cannot keep a person on the membership roles when they have explicitly instructed us to remove them.  As Ed had resigned in writing on 11 July, Tatiana?s appointment should have been presented as a replacement instead of alternate to begin with.  Let?s just change it to replacement and get on our work.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>>>>>> Robin
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joan,
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, but first we'll have to work out Ed's removal properly,
> >>>>>>>>>>> and we do need a new decision, by current EC.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> What we could and probably should do is decide that Tatiana will
> >>>>>>>>>>> be appointed as replacement as soon as Ed's removal from the council
> >>>>>>>>>>> is formally confirmed, so there'd be no danger of a gap in our
> >>>>>>>>>>> council represenation.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Tapani
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:24:06AM -0400, Joan Kerr (joankerr at fbsc.org) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Tapani, All
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I am responding to this email, because I was part of the meeting on
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Friday.  I support Tatiana as replacement instead of alternate.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Virus-free.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> www.avast.com
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Staff has pointed out that we made a procedural error in our Friday
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> meeting:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> two decisions that are in conflict with each other, both cannot be let
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> stand.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifically, like proxy, temporary alternate can only be appointed for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a councillor who's formally still in office. When a councillor resigns,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> proxy assignments and temporary alternate appointments are nullified,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and a temporary replacement (different from alternate) should be appointed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So if we deem Ed to have resigned, Tatiana's appointment is void.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This should not be hard to fix, but as time is short, I am going to let
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tatiana's appointment stand as it is and set our decision regarding Ed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> aside, or rather consider the latter to be mere discussion.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The practical reason for this is obviously the need to have Tatiana
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> in council for the vote tomorrow and we don't have time to make new
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> decisions before then.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There's also the formal point that member removal is a significant
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> decision, especially so when circumstances are unusual like now, and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> non-trivial decisions should not be made as last-minute AOB items.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This should not be too hard to do properly, especially if we can agree
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> on the list about Ed's status and replacement (changing Tatiana's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> status from alternate to replacement), or otherwise let's put it on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> next meeting agenda.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Joan Kerr,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Social Entrepreneur, Humanitarian
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> T: +1 (416) 907-0783
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Skype: joankerr_fbsc
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> fbsc.org, www.fbsc.eco
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Chair: Victory Garden Leadership Implementation Team
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Chair: IEEE Smart Villages Project, Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Chair: Agricultural Track, IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Chair: ICANN Not for Profit Operational Concerns Constituency
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Advisor, IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives Committee
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Advisor, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network, (CSAYN) Global
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Coordination Unit
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> NCSG-EC mailing list
> >>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NCSG-EC mailing list
> >> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
> > 
> > -- 
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> > _______________________________________________
> > NCSG-EC mailing list
> > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
> 

> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec


-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From robin at ipjustice.org  Sun Aug  6 22:26:23 2017
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 12:26:23 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Procedural errors
In-Reply-To: <20170806062941.a6ypc7zejw3sygsm@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170731164733.xuuot7fl3uas55np@tarvainen.info>
 <1F7B5D16-FC15-46D4-8997-9D665AAC1738@ipjustice.org>
 <20170801035232.573225ti3kq2r7pl@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <B94A1E48-B695-45FD-896B-10A1734BD82E@ipjustice.org>
 <20170802112602.utwxc56kax4nv7vx@tarvainen.info>
 <E6D62A00-4241-4AAE-AF40-D34AB3AA68DE@ipjustice.org>
 <20170804123008.ks4d246tx7exqvw5@tarvainen.info>
 <FDEC3B6D-96CF-4146-8BBF-CE378B8C917F@ipjustice.org>
 <20170805164945.o5zzx2edpxayjt3u@tarvainen.info>
 <FA01F038-EE47-42B8-A5BA-3043A6A9CC95@ipjustice.org>
 <20170806062941.a6ypc7zejw3sygsm@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <C7E227B9-894C-4A99-AA02-EB1AAB9AA161@ipjustice.org>

Tapani,

I remain troubled by your unilateral action to refuse to implement the decision of the Executive Committee on 7/27 to note for the record Ed Morris? resignation from NCSG.

You continue to fundamentally misunderstand the relationship of your role to this committee, which is to accept monitoring and supervision from this committee in the execution your duties.  Without transparency of your actions, when we are kept in the dark as to what you are up to, we are not able to provide any supervision or monitoring of your actions as we are charged with by the charter.  This has become a reoccurring problem, not unique to this latest matter.  We need for you to be more upfront and forthcoming with us about what you are doing in the execution of your duties so we can do our job of monitoring and supervising them.

You?ve had nearly a month to resolve any ambiguity in your mind as to what the word ?all? means, and you owe this committee an explanation as to your actions.  

So I will ask for accountability and transparency from you again:
1.  What steps have you taken to resolve any ambiguity over the resignation and what is the status of any inquiry?
2.  What communications or other information have you received that lead you to believe this committee?s decision shouldn?t be implemented?
3.  What is the name of the ICANN staff member that you claim told you the EC?s decision to note the resignation for the record was a problem and what exactly did that staff member say?

These are all important pieces of information that we need for us to decide how we wish to proceed and we shouldn?t be kept in the dark.  It is an abuse of authority for the chair to try to hold this pertinent information only to himself and not allow the committee members to be fully informed as to what actions he has taken or what information has been received in the inquiry, so that we can decide as a committee how we wish to proceed on the matter.  

No more stalling, procedural tricks, or trying to change the subject.  We need answers to these 3 questions and transparency over your actions.

Robin

> On Aug 5, 2017, at 11:29 PM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> 
> Dear Robin,
> 
> I removed him from all mailing lists in lists.ncsg.is <http://lists.ncsg.is/> he was still on
> as well as ncsg-discuss, but not from the member database. Sending him
> the check-in messages was of course an automatic consequence of that.
> 
> This is not really leading us anywhere, but to recap:
> 
> * The word "lists" is ambiguous in this context, it is frequently
>  used to refer to mailing lists only, not to membership.
>  (I realize I accidentally committed the same ambiguity in my
>  last message, when I said I'd removed him from all lists.
>  Apologies for that.)
> 
> * The reason given in his message, lack of time due to a new job, does
>  not suggest any need to resign from NCSG (we have many members
>  who've chosen to remain members even though they have no time for
>  active participation and have unsubscribed all mailing lists).
> 
> * If Ed had wanted to resign he could have said so explicitly.
>  Moreover, after our call and my message to James Bladel he did
>  confirm his resignation from the council but not from NCSG, even
>  though he clearly could have.
> 
> * Ed's possible voluntary resignation from the NCSG is not up to the
>  EC to decide, nor the Chair, but Ed himself only. As long has he
>  hasn't communicated it explicitly, and we've never before considered
>  that vague a message explicit enough, he hasn't resigned.
> 
> * We don't know the reasons for Ed's very limited communication since
>  Joburg, but there could be several, illness, technical difficulties,
>  or simply lack of time. I don't see any reason not to wait until
>  they're over and he can clarify his intentions.
> 
> * When in doubt, it's better to err on the side of caution and
>  postpone hard-to-reverse actions, especially when postponing
>  them has no foreseeable harmful effects.
> 
> * I definitely made a mistake, arguably several, but not the one
>  you're saying. I don't see what contradictory explanations I've
>  given, but the situation did change after Ed sent his message to
>  James Bladel resolving his councillorship issue (which was the only
>  real problem here as far as I can see). And while at first I did
>  think this would be a simple thing to correct, just redo the
>  decision properly, but after you made a big issue I out of it I had
>  to rethink, and I'm grateful you did because it clearly prevented us
>  from making a mistake.
> 
> * I consider the decision on our last EC call erroneous for a number of
>  reasons, but I also note it did not specify a time limit.
>  So formally I'm now only delaying its implementation until I am sure
>  it is the right thing to do.
> 
> * Consequently, I will not remove Ed from NCSG membership until
>  either he clarifies that's what he wants or the EC makes a
>  decision to correct me or to remove him for a cause.
>  Or until someone otherwise convinces me I'm wrong (wouldn't be
>  the first time).
> 
> As for me "refusing to tell the EC" something, you are not the EC.
> 
> If you want the EC to act, ask me questions, request me to do
> something, chastise me or whatever, please make a motion to that
> effect. I will be happy to put it on the agenda for our next call, or
> accept a decision made on the list if consensus can be found here.
> 
> I agree though that we are really just wasting time here on a small
> issue that will naturally resolve itself in time anyway. But if you
> want to make an example of it, a precedent on how to deal with Chair's
> alleged abuse of power if you will, so be it.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Tapani
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 12:31:28PM -0700, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC (ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>) wrote:
>> 
>> Tapani,
>> 
>> Which lists exactly did you remove him from when he instructed you to remove him from ?all lists??  
>> 
>> After receiving your email below, I checked our membership lists in the official database, and he is still listed as an active NCSG member and NCUC member in the database (see attached).  In fact, he has been sent 3 membership requests to ?check-in? to vote in the coming NCSG election, including a check-in request from only a few hours ago to him, although he has not checked-in as wishing to be an active member of NCSG.  So I?m confused when you say you did remove him from all lists.  Which ones and when?  And why not these?
>> 
>> Tapani, as I have stated before, my concern is for your abuse of authority in your execution of EC duties.  Here are a few examples from the last week alone:
>> Constantly shifting and contradictory explanations for refusing to implement EC decision; making procedural mistakes and then using those minor wording mistakes as pretext to set aside EC decisions you don?t agree with; refusal to tell the EC what you have done to resolve any ambiguity while simultaneously claiming you won?t implement the EC decision because there is ambiguity in your mind.
>> 
>> This whole matter should have been a simple, minor, "note for the record", as we have done in the past <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/2017-April/000086.html <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/2017-April/000086.html>> when membership resignations have come in, and since the GNSO Council was on record as awaiting clarification <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-July/020193.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-July/020193.html>> from you about the resignation.  
>> 
>> The membership resignation is nearly a month old and you refuse to say what you?ve done to resolve any ambiguity, explain why you think it is ambiguous, or what communications have you received which lead you to believe the plain words of the resignation should not be followed, and this committee?s decision to note the resignation for the record should not implemented.  It appears like pointless games and procedural tricks over what is a simple procedural matter.
>> 
>> Tapani, you were wrong to overturn the EC decision, as you did in your communication to the GNSO Council on 30 July, and you?ve just been stubborn about admitting it, simply fixing your mistake, and moving forward on important matters.
>> 
>> Robin
>> 
>> Summary Timeline (mostly of this email thread, although links to other communications where referenced):
>> 
>> 11 July - Tapani received written resignation <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/2017-July/000143.html <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/2017-July/000143.html>> (which confirmed what had been foretold to many <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/2017-July/000137.html <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/2017-July/000137.html>>) by member who requested to be removed from "all lists?.
>> 
>> 17 July - GNSO Council notes it is waiting <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-July/020193.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-July/020193.html>> for clarification from Tapani on member's status
>> 
>> 28 July - EC noted for the record, as is practice, that a membership resignation came in and we accepted it.  Tapani agreed to remove member from all lists, including membership list.
>> 
>> 30 July - Tapani informed GNSO Council that Ed?s status remains formally unchanged <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-July/020239.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-July/020239.html>> (Tapani over-turned the EC decision without consultation or even cc to EC).
>> 
>> 30 July - Tapani announced to EC he had set aside 7/28 EC decision to remove Ed from membership list due to his procedural mistake (Tapani called Tatiana?s appointment ?alternate? instead of ?replacement? and therefore he claims entitlement to set aside EC decision to note Ed's resignation for the record).  
>> 
>> 2 August - Tapani announced the EC decision to accept the resignation was substantively and procedurally wrong and wouldn?t be implemented by him.
>> 
>> 4 August - Tapani claimed he would be "derelict in his duty" if he implemented the EC decision to accept and note the resignation.
>> 
>> 5 August - Big change in story: Tapani claimed he did in fact remove Ed from all lists when instructed (and thus implemented EC decision?)  
>>                  Note for record:  Ed remains on NCSG membership list in the official database as of this writing (see attached).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 5, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Dear Robin,
>>> 
>>> I did remove Ed from all NCSG's lists immediately when he so requested.
>>> 
>>> But before spending more time in documenting this, I must ask:
>>> 
>>> What on earth is going on here? What are you trying to do and why?
>>> Why do you care about Ed's membership?
>>> 
>>> The whole thing does not make sense.
>>> 
>>> As I see it, there're basically two situations were the EC should
>>> be involved regarding a member leaving the NCSG:
>>> (1) when considering removal a member for a cause, and
>>> (2) when a member complains about his or her treatment and
>>>   asks the EC to intervene.
>>> 
>>> We're not talking about (1) here, and in case of a member leaving
>>> voluntarily the NCSG the only person whose rights are potentially
>>> being violated by inadequate handling of the process is the member in
>>> question.
>>> 
>>> Members requesting to leave is routine, and they're regularly unclear
>>> about whether they want to resign from NCSG or just unsubscribe the
>>> mailing list(s). And I (or Maryam) routinely ask them to clarify and
>>> don't remove their membership until they make it clear that's what
>>> they want, occasionally waiting a long time for an answer. This case
>>> should not be unusual, there should be no need for the EC to concern
>>> itself with it. So I don't understand why you brought it up, let alone
>>> why you're now fighting so hard about it.
>>> 
>>> You can't seriously claim you think I'm violating Ed's rights by
>>> refusing to let him resign and that you're acting as his champion.
>>> 
>>> Indeed it is beginning to look as if you want to remove Ed from NCSG
>>> against his will and to do so in a way that sidesteps due process and
>>> all the safeguards in our charter and in the (still draft) member
>>> removal procedures we've been working on.
>>> 
>>> I hope that is not actually the case, but appearances matter, and even
>>> leaving room for suspicion of such is bad enough.
>>> 
>>> The only alternative explanation I can think of is that you're using
>>> this, in itself trivial, case to get back at me from some past wrongs,
>>> having gotten me into a situation that is apparently lose-lose for me:
>>> either I risk violating Ed's rights by removing him against his will
>>> (which we don't really know) or I risk EC's wrath by defying it's
>>> decision that I in retrospect consider not only hurried and
>>> ill-considered but flat out wrong.
>>> 
>>> As in addition to everything else, I can't see any harm to anybody in
>>> leaving him in NCSG member list until he clarifies the situation,
>>> whereas removing him would be much harder to undo if it turns out
>>> he did not want to resign after all.
>>> 
>>> So, are you
>>> 
>>> (1) arguing that not removing Ed's NCSG membership immediately is
>>> somehow so bad that I'm causing serious harm by delaying it; or
>>> 
>>> (2) making a point of principle that EC decisions are irreversible and
>>> any delay in implementing them, let alone bringing them back to the EC
>>> for reconsideration when I think a mistake was made, is fundamentally
>>> wrong?
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> 
>>> Tapani
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 08:05:14AM -0700, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC (ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is) wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Tapani,
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for agreeing that you do not have the authority to overturn an EC decision, but are instead unilaterally refusing to implement the EC?s decision to accept Ed Morris? resignation from NCSG and that you are refusing to remove him from the membership and email lists.
>>>> 
>>>> Since you are holding up the implementation of the EC?s decision, I think your bringing the EC up to speed on what you have done in this matter is needed for us to decide what to do with your refusal.
>>>> 
>>>> 1.  What steps have you taken to resolve any perceived ambiguity about Ed?s resignation from NCSG and what is the status of any inquiry?
>>>> 2.  What lists did you remove Ed from upon receiving Ed's email instructing you to remove him from ?all lists??  Any?
>>>> 3.  How do you propose the EC decide to implement our decision to accept Ed's resignation?  Keeping in mind it is an EC decision, not a chair decision.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 4, 2017, at 5:30 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear Robin,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you for the explanation. I'm still not quite sure I understand
>>>>> where you're coming from, but perhaps we're getting closer.
>>>>> 
>>>>> First I had trouble understanding your complaint, because I thought I'd
>>>>> done almost exactly what you ask: as soon as I became aware of the problem,
>>>>> I notified the EC that we made a mistake we must fix. "Almost" because
>>>>> I did let Tatiana's temporary alternate appointment stand without waiting
>>>>> for the EC to reconsider it.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Apparently at least part of the issue is communication, I haven't expressed
>>>>> myself clearly. When I said I'd put a decision aside, I didn't intend it to
>>>>> mean I'll discard it, rather that I won't immediately implement what to me
>>>>> seemed to be an obvious mistake and instead will bring the issue back to the
>>>>> EC. Contrary to your claim, I explicitly chose *not* to implement the
>>>>> decision about Ed before bringing it back to the EC. With Tatiana I
>>>>> admittedly did, because time was short and it seemed less problematic.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I agree I could have phrased things better, now as well as any number of
>>>>> times in the past I'm sure, more "hygge" fashion if you like. I will accept
>>>>> chastisement in this regard and try to use more convivial wordings and
>>>>> discussion style in the future.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But if the EC at any time makes another decision that seems to me to be a
>>>>> simple mistake due to too much rush or whatever, I will do substantively the
>>>>> same thing: bring it back to the EC before rushing to implementation. I think
>>>>> I would be derelict of my duty if I didn't do that.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If the decision, whatever it is, is indeed obvious, redoing it properly
>>>>> should not be a big deal.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Back to the issues at hand.
>>>>> 
>>>>> First, Tatiana's appointment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You seem to be arguing there's no significant difference between a temporary
>>>>> altenate and a temporary replacement and that I could simply have
>>>>> reinterpreted the EC decision from alternate to replacement. If so, I must
>>>>> disagree - then I would indeed have acted contrary to EC's explicit decision.
>>>>> And in fact we could not have appointed her as a temporary replacement before
>>>>> Ed's resignation from the council was confirmed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, I could have canceled her alternate appointment as soon as talk with
>>>>> staff brought the problem to my attention (no, I did not make it up) and
>>>>> waited for the EC to make a new decision, but time was short and I thought
>>>>> the alternate appointment was in fact done properly.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What we could and in retrospect should have done is to appoint her as
>>>>> temporary alternate then and, as a separate decision, decide to
>>>>> appoint her as temporary replacement as soon as Ed's resignation from
>>>>> the council would be confirmed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Fortunately that is easy to fix: just do the latter decision now,
>>>>> as I've already asked for you to do on the list. We really should
>>>>> decide that before next Council meeting on August 24.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Second, Ed's status.
>>>>> 
>>>>> First I thought this would be easy as well. But clearly it is not.
>>>>> Fortunately it's not urgent either, as far as I can see.
>>>>> 
>>>>> My real mistake was allowing it as a decision item in the first place.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For the EC actually has no right to make such decisions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> You're saying I'm refusing to accept Ed's resignation. If so, the only
>>>>> person with standing to challenge it is Ed, nobody else - not you
>>>>> (unless you're his attorney), not the EC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As noted earlier, the issue is not removing him for a cause, which
>>>>> would belong to the EC, but determination of his intent.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And maintaining membership data is responsibility of the Chair.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Under the supervision of the EC, yes. I have already invited you to
>>>>> discuss the issue, seeking your advice before doing anything, and
>>>>> in the end you have several means to exercise your supevision,
>>>>> all the way down to removing me from office.
>>>>> 
>>>>> So, will not remove Ed from NCSG membership without further
>>>>> discussion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have not decided what to do about it and remain open to persuasion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But merely saying "it's already decided" won't cut it. A quick
>>>>> last-minute AOB decision, arguably hard to distinguish from mere
>>>>> discussion, does not count as supervision in my book.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And I would very much like to discuss the substance of the case in more
>>>>> general terms, including if we should write down procedures for handling
>>>>> this kind of situations in the future. As I said, I see no reason to rush.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tapani
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:49:54AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Tapani,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You are either missing or refusing to see the point: you are not a dictator to this committee.  The chair is supposed to carry out the duties UNDER THE SUPERVISION of the EC according to our charter.  You have routinely disregarded any supervision and done as you pleased, and in this case, in explicit contradiction to the decision of the EC and the request of the member seeking removal.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you think there was a procedural problem with an EC decision that needs rectifying, you should come back to the committee and say ?hey, I made a mistake.  How should WE proceed?  Here is what I propose...?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But you didn?t (don?t) do that.  Instead you come back and say ?I decided this decision could not stand so I decided to overturn it do this other thing instead.?  And then implement your own unilateral decision without any supervision or opportunity by the EC to discuss your earlier procedural error and how WE might want to handle it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You are again attempting to usurp the authority of the committee and replace the committee's judgment with your own unilateral decisions.  Minor procedural errors by your own creating do not grant you the authority to overturn EC decisions at your own unchecked discretion.  That is what you don?t seem to understand and what has been a consistent problem since you became you chair.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Aug 2, 2017, at 4:26 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear Robin,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> When I'm faced with two conflicting decisions to implement, I not
>>>>>>> only can but I must choose which one to implement, if either.
>>>>>>> I can't do otherwise any more than I can defy gravity.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> But before (or hopefully instead of) digging deeper into legalistic
>>>>>>> arguments, fun though that might be, let's talk about substance.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For there may be something more to this than it appeared at first.
>>>>>>> I thought the procedural error would have been easy to fix by re-doing
>>>>>>> the decision properly, but it seems I was wrong.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The question at hand was not removal for a cause, but simply
>>>>>>> determination of Ed's intent, not something that should subject of
>>>>>>> heated debate, and if we made a mistake there, we'd have to correct it
>>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We should be extra careful in removing members in unclear
>>>>>>> circumstances. We spent a long time working on the member removal
>>>>>>> procedures; we should not create loopholes or back doors that allow
>>>>>>> members to be removed quickly, with last-minute AOB-item
>>>>>>> interpretations of ambiguous messages, and thus bypassing all the
>>>>>>> safeguards we'd otherwise be applying.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And Ed's message was ambiguous: the very fact that we're discussing it now
>>>>>>> and indeed have discussed its meaning from the start is enough to prove that.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Moreover, Ed has had the opportunity to confirm it if resignation from
>>>>>>> NCSG was his intent. We know he receives emails, in fact he reacted to
>>>>>>> this very case by confirming his resignation from the Council, but he
>>>>>>> did not do so regarding his NCSG membership, even though just as
>>>>>>> easily could have.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> And in the past we've never removed anyone who's resignation message
>>>>>>> has been in the least bit unclear, but always acted only after getting
>>>>>>> unambiguous confirmation or lost contact for a *very* long time.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So the decision to remove him from NCSG was not only procedurally but
>>>>>>> also substantively wrong.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Frankly I'm having hard time understanding why you're making a big
>>>>>>> issue out of this and why you wanted it dealt with so quickly by
>>>>>>> bringing it to the EC as last-minute AOB item and now fighting for it
>>>>>>> tooth and nail. Regarding his councillorship there was a need to
>>>>>>> resolve it urgently, indeed that's why I thought you brought it up in
>>>>>>> the call, but his membership in NCSG has no significant impact in
>>>>>>> anything that I can see, certainly there's no urgency in it that would
>>>>>>> prevent us from dealing it with good time.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Or is there something I don't know going on? Why are you so eager to
>>>>>>> get him removed so fast? Even if it is really only to express your
>>>>>>> dissatisfaction in my performance, in this context it looks more than
>>>>>>> a bit odd, when this really should be easy to do right.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:00:47PM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Tapani,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The greatest procedural error in all of this seems to be your presumption that you have the authority to overturn a decision of the EC.  Had you simply framed Ed's appointment as a replacement rather than an alternate in the first place (your error) we wouldn?t be having these problems.  Also, Ed?s resignation from NCSG was clearly made in writing on 11 July and was unambiguous about him leaving council.  For you to try to use your mistake in word selection to overturn the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation is rather remarkable.  There is nothing in the charter that gives the chair the authority to overturn EC decisions, procedural error or not.  You are illegitimately choosing an arbitrary binary as the only possible solutions to your error, but there is no basis in logic or in the charter for you to think you have the authority to set aside EC decisions at your discretion.  The charter gives you no such authority, especially not when you make the errors, that are now used to try to justify your over-turning the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation.  We explicitly agreed on the EC call last week that Ed?s language was explicit enough to interpret it as a complete resignation.  The point was discussed and decided.  Perhaps you should check the transcript if you don?t remember that.  That EC decision stands and it is another usurpation of this committee?s authority for you to attempt to over-turn it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 8:52 PM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dear Robin,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> With due respect I have to disagree.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> We made two formally conflicting decisions, we could
>>>>>>>>> not let them both stand. The first, Tatiana's appointment,
>>>>>>>>> was clear and unquestionable, the second, Ed's status,
>>>>>>>>> much less so for a number of reasons.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I don't think anybody would've been happy if I had
>>>>>>>>> failed to appoint Tatiana because of the latter. Would you?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> But, I agree that Ed's message was clear enough regarding
>>>>>>>>> his council seat, and he has indeed just confirmed it
>>>>>>>>> in a message to James Bladel, so there's no need to
>>>>>>>>> debate that any more.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> What we need to do, however, is to change Tatiana's
>>>>>>>>> status from temporary alternate to temporary replacement.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31 15:34, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Tapani,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> The EC made a decision last week to accept Ed?s resignation and note it for the record.  You do not have the authority to over-turn the unanimous decision of the EC.  Decisions of the EC must be unanimous by all members of the committee.  After the committee has made a unanimous decision, the chair has no authority to ?undo? the decision, as you have attempted to do.  I don?t know what authority you think you have to over-turn a decision of the committee to accept his resignation from the NCSG.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, there is nothing unclear or ambiguous about Ed?s resignation.  Surely people don?t have to list every single list they are a member of before their resignation can be accepted. Ed's written resignation letter very explicitly said to remove him from ?ALL lists? and this unambiguously includes the membership list.  This resignation comes as no surprise as it was long foretold by Ed and others, and your attempts to revive his membership have gone unanswered by him.  The only one this resignation seems ?confused? to is you.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> As I've already noted, Ed's email is not exactly clear, his talk in
>>>>>>>>>>> Johannesburg much less so (saying he intends to resign is not same as
>>>>>>>>>>> resigning, after all he'd said it many times before).
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> And our AOB talk on Friday was confused, in particular we didn't make
>>>>>>>>>>> at all clear if we're talking about him leaving just the council or
>>>>>>>>>>> his NCSG membership or what. So I want to do it properly.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:22:42AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I?m not sure where all the confusion and mystery is coming from.  Ed told many people in Joburg he was resigning, including yourself, which we discussed on this list.  Then he sent a resignation email to you on July 11 instructing you to remove him from all lists, which was forwarded to the EC weeks ago.  We don?t need for the EC to ?agree" to his resignation for it to take effect.  We on the EC cannot keep a person on the membership roles when they have explicitly instructed us to remove them.  As Ed had resigned in writing on 11 July, Tatiana?s appointment should have been presented as a replacement instead of alternate to begin with.  Let?s just change it to replacement and get on our work.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joan,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, but first we'll have to work out Ed's removal properly,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and we do need a new decision, by current EC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What we could and probably should do is decide that Tatiana will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be appointed as replacement as soon as Ed's removal from the council
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is formally confirmed, so there'd be no danger of a gap in our
>>>>>>>>>>>>> council represenation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:24:06AM -0400, Joan Kerr (joankerr at fbsc.org) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Tapani, All
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am responding to this email, because I was part of the meeting on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Friday.  I support Tatiana as replacement instead of alternate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Virus-free.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.avast.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Staff has pointed out that we made a procedural error in our Friday
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meeting:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two decisions that are in conflict with each other, both cannot be let
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifically, like proxy, temporary alternate can only be appointed for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a councillor who's formally still in office. When a councillor resigns,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proxy assignments and temporary alternate appointments are nullified,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a temporary replacement (different from alternate) should be appointed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if we deem Ed to have resigned, Tatiana's appointment is void.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This should not be hard to fix, but as time is short, I am going to let
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tatiana's appointment stand as it is and set our decision regarding Ed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aside, or rather consider the latter to be mere discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The practical reason for this is obviously the need to have Tatiana
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in council for the vote tomorrow and we don't have time to make new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decisions before then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's also the formal point that member removal is a significant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision, especially so when circumstances are unusual like now, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-trivial decisions should not be made as last-minute AOB items.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This should not be too hard to do properly, especially if we can agree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the list about Ed's status and replacement (changing Tatiana's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status from alternate to replacement), or otherwise let's put it on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next meeting agenda.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joan Kerr,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Social Entrepreneur, Humanitarian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> T: +1 (416) 907-0783
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Skype: joankerr_fbsc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fbsc.org, www.fbsc.eco
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chair: Victory Garden Leadership Implementation Team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chair: IEEE Smart Villages Project, Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chair: Agricultural Track, IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chair: ICANN Not for Profit Operational Concerns Constituency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Advisor, IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives Committee
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Advisor, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network, (CSAYN) Global
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Coordination Unit
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>> 
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20170806/7b52c427/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Mon Aug  7 08:21:24 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 08:21:24 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Procedural errors
In-Reply-To: <C7E227B9-894C-4A99-AA02-EB1AAB9AA161@ipjustice.org>
References: <20170801035232.573225ti3kq2r7pl@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <B94A1E48-B695-45FD-896B-10A1734BD82E@ipjustice.org>
 <20170802112602.utwxc56kax4nv7vx@tarvainen.info>
 <E6D62A00-4241-4AAE-AF40-D34AB3AA68DE@ipjustice.org>
 <20170804123008.ks4d246tx7exqvw5@tarvainen.info>
 <FDEC3B6D-96CF-4146-8BBF-CE378B8C917F@ipjustice.org>
 <20170805164945.o5zzx2edpxayjt3u@tarvainen.info>
 <FA01F038-EE47-42B8-A5BA-3043A6A9CC95@ipjustice.org>
 <20170806062941.a6ypc7zejw3sygsm@tarvainen.info>
 <C7E227B9-894C-4A99-AA02-EB1AAB9AA161@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20170807052124.6gk7xnl5tou37zec@tarvainen.info>

Dear Robin,

We disagree and mere repetition of arguments won't change that.

If you want the EC to act, you are free and able to ask it to do so.

But continuing this dialogue is clearly futile.

Sincerely,

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From gangactor at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 09:16:27 2017
From: gangactor at yahoo.com (gangadhar)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 06:16:27 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Procedural errors
In-Reply-To: <20170807052124.6gk7xnl5tou37zec@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170801035232.573225ti3kq2r7pl@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <B94A1E48-B695-45FD-896B-10A1734BD82E@ipjustice.org>
 <20170802112602.utwxc56kax4nv7vx@tarvainen.info>
 <E6D62A00-4241-4AAE-AF40-D34AB3AA68DE@ipjustice.org>
 <20170804123008.ks4d246tx7exqvw5@tarvainen.info>
 <FDEC3B6D-96CF-4146-8BBF-CE378B8C917F@ipjustice.org>
 <20170805164945.o5zzx2edpxayjt3u@tarvainen.info>
 <FA01F038-EE47-42B8-A5BA-3043A6A9CC95@ipjustice.org>
 <20170806062941.a6ypc7zejw3sygsm@tarvainen.info>
 <C7E227B9-894C-4A99-AA02-EB1AAB9AA161@ipjustice.org>
 <20170807052124.6gk7xnl5tou37zec@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <1109332877.1147690.1502086587310@mail.yahoo.com>

Hi team,It is just me,?I wanted to know if the Charter speaks ofany 'format' for resignation??with best wishesGanga?Actor, EnvironmentalistPresident - Babul Films Society NGO np?http://www.imdb.me/ gangadharpandaywww.babul.ngo
 

    On Monday, 7 August 2017 10:51 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
 

 Dear Robin,

We disagree and mere repetition of arguments won't change that.

If you want the EC to act, you are free and able to ask it to do so.

But continuing this dialogue is clearly futile.

Sincerely,

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen
_______________________________________________
NCSG-EC mailing list
NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec


   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20170807/d36a6474/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Mon Aug  7 11:08:21 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 11:08:21 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Procedural errors
In-Reply-To: <1109332877.1147690.1502086587310@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20170802112602.utwxc56kax4nv7vx@tarvainen.info>
 <E6D62A00-4241-4AAE-AF40-D34AB3AA68DE@ipjustice.org>
 <20170804123008.ks4d246tx7exqvw5@tarvainen.info>
 <FDEC3B6D-96CF-4146-8BBF-CE378B8C917F@ipjustice.org>
 <20170805164945.o5zzx2edpxayjt3u@tarvainen.info>
 <FA01F038-EE47-42B8-A5BA-3043A6A9CC95@ipjustice.org>
 <20170806062941.a6ypc7zejw3sygsm@tarvainen.info>
 <C7E227B9-894C-4A99-AA02-EB1AAB9AA161@ipjustice.org>
 <20170807052124.6gk7xnl5tou37zec@tarvainen.info>
 <1109332877.1147690.1502086587310@mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20170807080821.lfksi3zezyrvra25@tarvainen.info>

Dear Gangadhar,

No, the Charter does not say anything specific about that.
If it did we'd be unlikely to be having this discussion.

For reference, you can find the Charter here:

https://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf

In general there're very few detailed processes there, the EC should
write such wherever needed. In some cases, such as member removal, the
Charter explicitly says it should be done and have the procedures
approved by membership, and we've been working on that for some time
now - we actually have a draft ready for larger discussion, but we
didn't address voluntary resignation there. Perhaps we should.

The issue should become pretty much moot soon though, as one planned
feature of the new member database system is an interface for members
to access and update their own information, including things like
changing the representative of an organization as well as resigning.
We'll just have to make the interface and wording there explicit
enough to avoid any misunderstandings as well as possible.

Best regards,

Tapani


On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 06:16:27AM +0000, gangadhar (gangactor at yahoo.com) wrote:

> Hi team,It is just me, I wanted to know if the Charter speaks of any
> 'format' for resignation?

> with best wishes Ganga Actor, Environmentalist President - Babul Films
> Society NGO np http://www.imdb.me/ gangadharpandaywww.babul.ngo


From robin at ipjustice.org  Mon Aug  7 21:34:07 2017
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 11:34:07 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Procedural errors
In-Reply-To: <C7E227B9-894C-4A99-AA02-EB1AAB9AA161@ipjustice.org>
References: <20170731164733.xuuot7fl3uas55np@tarvainen.info>
 <1F7B5D16-FC15-46D4-8997-9D665AAC1738@ipjustice.org>
 <20170801035232.573225ti3kq2r7pl@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <B94A1E48-B695-45FD-896B-10A1734BD82E@ipjustice.org>
 <20170802112602.utwxc56kax4nv7vx@tarvainen.info>
 <E6D62A00-4241-4AAE-AF40-D34AB3AA68DE@ipjustice.org>
 <20170804123008.ks4d246tx7exqvw5@tarvainen.info>
 <FDEC3B6D-96CF-4146-8BBF-CE378B8C917F@ipjustice.org>
 <20170805164945.o5zzx2edpxayjt3u@tarvainen.info>
 <FA01F038-EE47-42B8-A5BA-3043A6A9CC95@ipjustice.org>
 <20170806062941.a6ypc7zejw3sygsm@tarvainen.info>
 <C7E227B9-894C-4A99-AA02-EB1AAB9AA161@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <C96F1CD5-00FC-4FEC-9E39-4C6F4CF5D4EE@ipjustice.org>

Tapani,

Does your below response mean that you continue to refuse to answer these 3 questions and account for your actions in this matter?  

The questions remain:
1.  What steps have you taken to resolve any ambiguity over the resignation and what is the status of any inquiry?
2.  What communications or other information have you received that lead you to believe this committee?s decision shouldn?t be implemented?
3.  What is the name of the ICANN staff member that you claim told you the EC?s decision to note the resignation for the record was a problem and what exactly did that staff member say?

Robin

Relevant excerpt from the attached transcript of the 28 July NCSG EC meeting:

Robin:   Yes. Thanks, Tapani. I just wanted to - or I thought we should confirm for the record that Ed Morris has resigned from the NCSG. I?ve seen there would have been some discussion on the GNSO council list where they were not quite sure of his status. And so I thought it was important that we just confirm that for the record. Thanks.

Tapani:   Thank you, Joan. Yes, that is a bit confusing because Ed?s messages on the subject, at least the ones I have seen, have been a bit ambiguous. But the one I posted on the list earlier saying that please remove me from everything sounds enough like a resignation to me. So I guess we can conclude that he has resigned and confirmed it. Any ...

Robin:   Great. Thanks. Yes, that was my reading as well, because since he said he resigned from all lists, that would include the membership list. Thanks.

Tapani:   Okay. Anybody disagree on that? Okay, so we?ll remove Ed from the member database. Any other business? Now, I see we are in good time actually despite the long agenda. We managed to do that in less than time made available. So unless anybody has any other business at this point. No? Okay, we're done. thank you everybody. It was an efficient meeting. ...


> On Aug 6, 2017, at 10:21 PM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> 
> Dear Robin,
> 
> We disagree and mere repetition of arguments won't change that.
> 
> If you want the EC to act, you are free and able to ask it to do so.
> 
> But continuing this dialogue is clearly futile.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec


> On Aug 6, 2017, at 12:26 PM, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> 
> Tapani,
> 
> I remain troubled by your unilateral action to refuse to implement the decision of the Executive Committee on 7/27 to note for the record Ed Morris? resignation from NCSG.
> 
> You continue to fundamentally misunderstand the relationship of your role to this committee, which is to accept monitoring and supervision from this committee in the execution your duties.  Without transparency of your actions, when we are kept in the dark as to what you are up to, we are not able to provide any supervision or monitoring of your actions as we are charged with by the charter.  This has become a reoccurring problem, not unique to this latest matter.  We need for you to be more upfront and forthcoming with us about what you are doing in the execution of your duties so we can do our job of monitoring and supervising them.
> 
> You?ve had nearly a month to resolve any ambiguity in your mind as to what the word ?all? means, and you owe this committee an explanation as to your actions.  
> 
> So I will ask for accountability and transparency from you again:
> 1.  What steps have you taken to resolve any ambiguity over the resignation and what is the status of any inquiry?
> 2.  What communications or other information have you received that lead you to believe this committee?s decision shouldn?t be implemented?
> 3.  What is the name of the ICANN staff member that you claim told you the EC?s decision to note the resignation for the record was a problem and what exactly did that staff member say?
> 
> These are all important pieces of information that we need for us to decide how we wish to proceed and we shouldn?t be kept in the dark.  It is an abuse of authority for the chair to try to hold this pertinent information only to himself and not allow the committee members to be fully informed as to what actions he has taken or what information has been received in the inquiry, so that we can decide as a committee how we wish to proceed on the matter.  
> 
> No more stalling, procedural tricks, or trying to change the subject.  We need answers to these 3 questions and transparency over your actions.
> 
> Robin


> On Aug 6, 2017, at 12:26 PM, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> 
> Tapani,
> 
> I remain troubled by your unilateral action to refuse to implement the decision of the Executive Committee on 7/27 to note for the record Ed Morris? resignation from NCSG.
> 
> You continue to fundamentally misunderstand the relationship of your role to this committee, which is to accept monitoring and supervision from this committee in the execution your duties.  Without transparency of your actions, when we are kept in the dark as to what you are up to, we are not able to provide any supervision or monitoring of your actions as we are charged with by the charter.  This has become a reoccurring problem, not unique to this latest matter.  We need for you to be more upfront and forthcoming with us about what you are doing in the execution of your duties so we can do our job of monitoring and supervising them.
> 
> You?ve had nearly a month to resolve any ambiguity in your mind as to what the word ?all? means, and you owe this committee an explanation as to your actions.  
> 
> So I will ask for accountability and transparency from you again:
> 1.  What steps have you taken to resolve any ambiguity over the resignation and what is the status of any inquiry?
> 2.  What communications or other information have you received that lead you to believe this committee?s decision shouldn?t be implemented?
> 3.  What is the name of the ICANN staff member that you claim told you the EC?s decision to note the resignation for the record was a problem and what exactly did that staff member say?
> 
> These are all important pieces of information that we need for us to decide how we wish to proceed and we shouldn?t be kept in the dark.  It is an abuse of authority for the chair to try to hold this pertinent information only to himself and not allow the committee members to be fully informed as to what actions he has taken or what information has been received in the inquiry, so that we can decide as a committee how we wish to proceed on the matter.  
> 
> No more stalling, procedural tricks, or trying to change the subject.  We need answers to these 3 questions and transparency over your actions.
> 
> Robin
> 
>> On Aug 5, 2017, at 11:29 PM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Robin,
>> 
>> I removed him from all mailing lists in lists.ncsg.is <http://lists.ncsg.is/> he was still on
>> as well as ncsg-discuss, but not from the member database. Sending him
>> the check-in messages was of course an automatic consequence of that.
>> 
>> This is not really leading us anywhere, but to recap:
>> 
>> * The word "lists" is ambiguous in this context, it is frequently
>>  used to refer to mailing lists only, not to membership.
>>  (I realize I accidentally committed the same ambiguity in my
>>  last message, when I said I'd removed him from all lists.
>>  Apologies for that.)
>> 
>> * The reason given in his message, lack of time due to a new job, does
>>  not suggest any need to resign from NCSG (we have many members
>>  who've chosen to remain members even though they have no time for
>>  active participation and have unsubscribed all mailing lists).
>> 
>> * If Ed had wanted to resign he could have said so explicitly.
>>  Moreover, after our call and my message to James Bladel he did
>>  confirm his resignation from the council but not from NCSG, even
>>  though he clearly could have.
>> 
>> * Ed's possible voluntary resignation from the NCSG is not up to the
>>  EC to decide, nor the Chair, but Ed himself only. As long has he
>>  hasn't communicated it explicitly, and we've never before considered
>>  that vague a message explicit enough, he hasn't resigned.
>> 
>> * We don't know the reasons for Ed's very limited communication since
>>  Joburg, but there could be several, illness, technical difficulties,
>>  or simply lack of time. I don't see any reason not to wait until
>>  they're over and he can clarify his intentions.
>> 
>> * When in doubt, it's better to err on the side of caution and
>>  postpone hard-to-reverse actions, especially when postponing
>>  them has no foreseeable harmful effects.
>> 
>> * I definitely made a mistake, arguably several, but not the one
>>  you're saying. I don't see what contradictory explanations I've
>>  given, but the situation did change after Ed sent his message to
>>  James Bladel resolving his councillorship issue (which was the only
>>  real problem here as far as I can see). And while at first I did
>>  think this would be a simple thing to correct, just redo the
>>  decision properly, but after you made a big issue I out of it I had
>>  to rethink, and I'm grateful you did because it clearly prevented us
>>  from making a mistake.
>> 
>> * I consider the decision on our last EC call erroneous for a number of
>>  reasons, but I also note it did not specify a time limit.
>>  So formally I'm now only delaying its implementation until I am sure
>>  it is the right thing to do.
>> 
>> * Consequently, I will not remove Ed from NCSG membership until
>>  either he clarifies that's what he wants or the EC makes a
>>  decision to correct me or to remove him for a cause.
>>  Or until someone otherwise convinces me I'm wrong (wouldn't be
>>  the first time).
>> 
>> As for me "refusing to tell the EC" something, you are not the EC.
>> 
>> If you want the EC to act, ask me questions, request me to do
>> something, chastise me or whatever, please make a motion to that
>> effect. I will be happy to put it on the agenda for our next call, or
>> accept a decision made on the list if consensus can be found here.
>> 
>> I agree though that we are really just wasting time here on a small
>> issue that will naturally resolve itself in time anyway. But if you
>> want to make an example of it, a precedent on how to deal with Chair's
>> alleged abuse of power if you will, so be it.
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> 
>> Tapani
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 12:31:28PM -0700, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC (ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>) wrote:
>>> 
>>> Tapani,
>>> 
>>> Which lists exactly did you remove him from when he instructed you to remove him from ?all lists??  
>>> 
>>> After receiving your email below, I checked our membership lists in the official database, and he is still listed as an active NCSG member and NCUC member in the database (see attached).  In fact, he has been sent 3 membership requests to ?check-in? to vote in the coming NCSG election, including a check-in request from only a few hours ago to him, although he has not checked-in as wishing to be an active member of NCSG.  So I?m confused when you say you did remove him from all lists.  Which ones and when?  And why not these?
>>> 
>>> Tapani, as I have stated before, my concern is for your abuse of authority in your execution of EC duties.  Here are a few examples from the last week alone:
>>> Constantly shifting and contradictory explanations for refusing to implement EC decision; making procedural mistakes and then using those minor wording mistakes as pretext to set aside EC decisions you don?t agree with; refusal to tell the EC what you have done to resolve any ambiguity while simultaneously claiming you won?t implement the EC decision because there is ambiguity in your mind.
>>> 
>>> This whole matter should have been a simple, minor, "note for the record", as we have done in the past <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/2017-April/000086.html <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/2017-April/000086.html>> when membership resignations have come in, and since the GNSO Council was on record as awaiting clarification <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-July/020193.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-July/020193.html>> from you about the resignation.  
>>> 
>>> The membership resignation is nearly a month old and you refuse to say what you?ve done to resolve any ambiguity, explain why you think it is ambiguous, or what communications have you received which lead you to believe the plain words of the resignation should not be followed, and this committee?s decision to note the resignation for the record should not implemented.  It appears like pointless games and procedural tricks over what is a simple procedural matter.
>>> 
>>> Tapani, you were wrong to overturn the EC decision, as you did in your communication to the GNSO Council on 30 July, and you?ve just been stubborn about admitting it, simply fixing your mistake, and moving forward on important matters.
>>> 
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> Summary Timeline (mostly of this email thread, although links to other communications where referenced):
>>> 
>>> 11 July - Tapani received written resignation <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/2017-July/000143.html <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/2017-July/000143.html>> (which confirmed what had been foretold to many <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/2017-July/000137.html <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/2017-July/000137.html>>) by member who requested to be removed from "all lists?.
>>> 
>>> 17 July - GNSO Council notes it is waiting <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-July/020193.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-July/020193.html>> for clarification from Tapani on member's status
>>> 
>>> 28 July - EC noted for the record, as is practice, that a membership resignation came in and we accepted it.  Tapani agreed to remove member from all lists, including membership list.
>>> 
>>> 30 July - Tapani informed GNSO Council that Ed?s status remains formally unchanged <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-July/020239.html <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-July/020239.html>> (Tapani over-turned the EC decision without consultation or even cc to EC).
>>> 
>>> 30 July - Tapani announced to EC he had set aside 7/28 EC decision to remove Ed from membership list due to his procedural mistake (Tapani called Tatiana?s appointment ?alternate? instead of ?replacement? and therefore he claims entitlement to set aside EC decision to note Ed's resignation for the record).  
>>> 
>>> 2 August - Tapani announced the EC decision to accept the resignation was substantively and procedurally wrong and wouldn?t be implemented by him.
>>> 
>>> 4 August - Tapani claimed he would be "derelict in his duty" if he implemented the EC decision to accept and note the resignation.
>>> 
>>> 5 August - Big change in story: Tapani claimed he did in fact remove Ed from all lists when instructed (and thus implemented EC decision?)  
>>>                  Note for record:  Ed remains on NCSG membership list in the official database as of this writing (see attached).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 5, 2017, at 9:49 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Robin,
>>>> 
>>>> I did remove Ed from all NCSG's lists immediately when he so requested.
>>>> 
>>>> But before spending more time in documenting this, I must ask:
>>>> 
>>>> What on earth is going on here? What are you trying to do and why?
>>>> Why do you care about Ed's membership?
>>>> 
>>>> The whole thing does not make sense.
>>>> 
>>>> As I see it, there're basically two situations were the EC should
>>>> be involved regarding a member leaving the NCSG:
>>>> (1) when considering removal a member for a cause, and
>>>> (2) when a member complains about his or her treatment and
>>>>   asks the EC to intervene.
>>>> 
>>>> We're not talking about (1) here, and in case of a member leaving
>>>> voluntarily the NCSG the only person whose rights are potentially
>>>> being violated by inadequate handling of the process is the member in
>>>> question.
>>>> 
>>>> Members requesting to leave is routine, and they're regularly unclear
>>>> about whether they want to resign from NCSG or just unsubscribe the
>>>> mailing list(s). And I (or Maryam) routinely ask them to clarify and
>>>> don't remove their membership until they make it clear that's what
>>>> they want, occasionally waiting a long time for an answer. This case
>>>> should not be unusual, there should be no need for the EC to concern
>>>> itself with it. So I don't understand why you brought it up, let alone
>>>> why you're now fighting so hard about it.
>>>> 
>>>> You can't seriously claim you think I'm violating Ed's rights by
>>>> refusing to let him resign and that you're acting as his champion.
>>>> 
>>>> Indeed it is beginning to look as if you want to remove Ed from NCSG
>>>> against his will and to do so in a way that sidesteps due process and
>>>> all the safeguards in our charter and in the (still draft) member
>>>> removal procedures we've been working on.
>>>> 
>>>> I hope that is not actually the case, but appearances matter, and even
>>>> leaving room for suspicion of such is bad enough.
>>>> 
>>>> The only alternative explanation I can think of is that you're using
>>>> this, in itself trivial, case to get back at me from some past wrongs,
>>>> having gotten me into a situation that is apparently lose-lose for me:
>>>> either I risk violating Ed's rights by removing him against his will
>>>> (which we don't really know) or I risk EC's wrath by defying it's
>>>> decision that I in retrospect consider not only hurried and
>>>> ill-considered but flat out wrong.
>>>> 
>>>> As in addition to everything else, I can't see any harm to anybody in
>>>> leaving him in NCSG member list until he clarifies the situation,
>>>> whereas removing him would be much harder to undo if it turns out
>>>> he did not want to resign after all.
>>>> 
>>>> So, are you
>>>> 
>>>> (1) arguing that not removing Ed's NCSG membership immediately is
>>>> somehow so bad that I'm causing serious harm by delaying it; or
>>>> 
>>>> (2) making a point of principle that EC decisions are irreversible and
>>>> any delay in implementing them, let alone bringing them back to the EC
>>>> for reconsideration when I think a mistake was made, is fundamentally
>>>> wrong?
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> 
>>>> Tapani
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 08:05:14AM -0700, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC (ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>) wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Tapani,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you for agreeing that you do not have the authority to overturn an EC decision, but are instead unilaterally refusing to implement the EC?s decision to accept Ed Morris? resignation from NCSG and that you are refusing to remove him from the membership and email lists.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Since you are holding up the implementation of the EC?s decision, I think your bringing the EC up to speed on what you have done in this matter is needed for us to decide what to do with your refusal.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1.  What steps have you taken to resolve any perceived ambiguity about Ed?s resignation from NCSG and what is the status of any inquiry?
>>>>> 2.  What lists did you remove Ed from upon receiving Ed's email instructing you to remove him from ?all lists??  Any?
>>>>> 3.  How do you propose the EC decide to implement our decision to accept Ed's resignation?  Keeping in mind it is an EC decision, not a chair decision.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 4, 2017, at 5:30 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear Robin,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you for the explanation. I'm still not quite sure I understand
>>>>>> where you're coming from, but perhaps we're getting closer.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> First I had trouble understanding your complaint, because I thought I'd
>>>>>> done almost exactly what you ask: as soon as I became aware of the problem,
>>>>>> I notified the EC that we made a mistake we must fix. "Almost" because
>>>>>> I did let Tatiana's temporary alternate appointment stand without waiting
>>>>>> for the EC to reconsider it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Apparently at least part of the issue is communication, I haven't expressed
>>>>>> myself clearly. When I said I'd put a decision aside, I didn't intend it to
>>>>>> mean I'll discard it, rather that I won't immediately implement what to me
>>>>>> seemed to be an obvious mistake and instead will bring the issue back to the
>>>>>> EC. Contrary to your claim, I explicitly chose *not* to implement the
>>>>>> decision about Ed before bringing it back to the EC. With Tatiana I
>>>>>> admittedly did, because time was short and it seemed less problematic.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I agree I could have phrased things better, now as well as any number of
>>>>>> times in the past I'm sure, more "hygge" fashion if you like. I will accept
>>>>>> chastisement in this regard and try to use more convivial wordings and
>>>>>> discussion style in the future.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But if the EC at any time makes another decision that seems to me to be a
>>>>>> simple mistake due to too much rush or whatever, I will do substantively the
>>>>>> same thing: bring it back to the EC before rushing to implementation. I think
>>>>>> I would be derelict of my duty if I didn't do that.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If the decision, whatever it is, is indeed obvious, redoing it properly
>>>>>> should not be a big deal.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Back to the issues at hand.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> First, Tatiana's appointment.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You seem to be arguing there's no significant difference between a temporary
>>>>>> altenate and a temporary replacement and that I could simply have
>>>>>> reinterpreted the EC decision from alternate to replacement. If so, I must
>>>>>> disagree - then I would indeed have acted contrary to EC's explicit decision.
>>>>>> And in fact we could not have appointed her as a temporary replacement before
>>>>>> Ed's resignation from the council was confirmed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes, I could have canceled her alternate appointment as soon as talk with
>>>>>> staff brought the problem to my attention (no, I did not make it up) and
>>>>>> waited for the EC to make a new decision, but time was short and I thought
>>>>>> the alternate appointment was in fact done properly.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What we could and in retrospect should have done is to appoint her as
>>>>>> temporary alternate then and, as a separate decision, decide to
>>>>>> appoint her as temporary replacement as soon as Ed's resignation from
>>>>>> the council would be confirmed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Fortunately that is easy to fix: just do the latter decision now,
>>>>>> as I've already asked for you to do on the list. We really should
>>>>>> decide that before next Council meeting on August 24.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Second, Ed's status.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> First I thought this would be easy as well. But clearly it is not.
>>>>>> Fortunately it's not urgent either, as far as I can see.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> My real mistake was allowing it as a decision item in the first place.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For the EC actually has no right to make such decisions.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> You're saying I'm refusing to accept Ed's resignation. If so, the only
>>>>>> person with standing to challenge it is Ed, nobody else - not you
>>>>>> (unless you're his attorney), not the EC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As noted earlier, the issue is not removing him for a cause, which
>>>>>> would belong to the EC, but determination of his intent.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And maintaining membership data is responsibility of the Chair.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Under the supervision of the EC, yes. I have already invited you to
>>>>>> discuss the issue, seeking your advice before doing anything, and
>>>>>> in the end you have several means to exercise your supevision,
>>>>>> all the way down to removing me from office.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So, will not remove Ed from NCSG membership without further
>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I have not decided what to do about it and remain open to persuasion.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But merely saying "it's already decided" won't cut it. A quick
>>>>>> last-minute AOB decision, arguably hard to distinguish from mere
>>>>>> discussion, does not count as supervision in my book.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And I would very much like to discuss the substance of the case in more
>>>>>> general terms, including if we should write down procedures for handling
>>>>>> this kind of situations in the future. As I said, I see no reason to rush.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:49:54AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>) wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Tapani,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You are either missing or refusing to see the point: you are not a dictator to this committee.  The chair is supposed to carry out the duties UNDER THE SUPERVISION of the EC according to our charter.  You have routinely disregarded any supervision and done as you pleased, and in this case, in explicit contradiction to the decision of the EC and the request of the member seeking removal.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If you think there was a procedural problem with an EC decision that needs rectifying, you should come back to the committee and say ?hey, I made a mistake.  How should WE proceed?  Here is what I propose...?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> But you didn?t (don?t) do that.  Instead you come back and say ?I decided this decision could not stand so I decided to overturn it do this other thing instead.?  And then implement your own unilateral decision without any supervision or opportunity by the EC to discuss your earlier procedural error and how WE might want to handle it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> You are again attempting to usurp the authority of the committee and replace the committee's judgment with your own unilateral decisions.  Minor procedural errors by your own creating do not grant you the authority to overturn EC decisions at your own unchecked discretion.  That is what you don?t seem to understand and what has been a consistent problem since you became you chair.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Aug 2, 2017, at 4:26 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Dear Robin,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> When I'm faced with two conflicting decisions to implement, I not
>>>>>>>> only can but I must choose which one to implement, if either.
>>>>>>>> I can't do otherwise any more than I can defy gravity.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> But before (or hopefully instead of) digging deeper into legalistic
>>>>>>>> arguments, fun though that might be, let's talk about substance.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> For there may be something more to this than it appeared at first.
>>>>>>>> I thought the procedural error would have been easy to fix by re-doing
>>>>>>>> the decision properly, but it seems I was wrong.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The question at hand was not removal for a cause, but simply
>>>>>>>> determination of Ed's intent, not something that should subject of
>>>>>>>> heated debate, and if we made a mistake there, we'd have to correct it
>>>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We should be extra careful in removing members in unclear
>>>>>>>> circumstances. We spent a long time working on the member removal
>>>>>>>> procedures; we should not create loopholes or back doors that allow
>>>>>>>> members to be removed quickly, with last-minute AOB-item
>>>>>>>> interpretations of ambiguous messages, and thus bypassing all the
>>>>>>>> safeguards we'd otherwise be applying.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And Ed's message was ambiguous: the very fact that we're discussing it now
>>>>>>>> and indeed have discussed its meaning from the start is enough to prove that.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Moreover, Ed has had the opportunity to confirm it if resignation from
>>>>>>>> NCSG was his intent. We know he receives emails, in fact he reacted to
>>>>>>>> this very case by confirming his resignation from the Council, but he
>>>>>>>> did not do so regarding his NCSG membership, even though just as
>>>>>>>> easily could have.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> And in the past we've never removed anyone who's resignation message
>>>>>>>> has been in the least bit unclear, but always acted only after getting
>>>>>>>> unambiguous confirmation or lost contact for a *very* long time.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So the decision to remove him from NCSG was not only procedurally but
>>>>>>>> also substantively wrong.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Frankly I'm having hard time understanding why you're making a big
>>>>>>>> issue out of this and why you wanted it dealt with so quickly by
>>>>>>>> bringing it to the EC as last-minute AOB item and now fighting for it
>>>>>>>> tooth and nail. Regarding his councillorship there was a need to
>>>>>>>> resolve it urgently, indeed that's why I thought you brought it up in
>>>>>>>> the call, but his membership in NCSG has no significant impact in
>>>>>>>> anything that I can see, certainly there's no urgency in it that would
>>>>>>>> prevent us from dealing it with good time.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Or is there something I don't know going on? Why are you so eager to
>>>>>>>> get him removed so fast? Even if it is really only to express your
>>>>>>>> dissatisfaction in my performance, in this context it looks more than
>>>>>>>> a bit odd, when this really should be easy to do right.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:00:47PM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>) wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Tapani,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The greatest procedural error in all of this seems to be your presumption that you have the authority to overturn a decision of the EC.  Had you simply framed Ed's appointment as a replacement rather than an alternate in the first place (your error) we wouldn?t be having these problems.  Also, Ed?s resignation from NCSG was clearly made in writing on 11 July and was unambiguous about him leaving council.  For you to try to use your mistake in word selection to overturn the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation is rather remarkable.  There is nothing in the charter that gives the chair the authority to overturn EC decisions, procedural error or not.  You are illegitimately choosing an arbitrary binary as the only possible solutions to your error, but there is no basis in logic or in the charter for you to think you have the authority to set aside EC decisions at your discretion.  The charter gives you no such authority, especially not when you make the errors, that are now used to try to justify your over-turning the EC?s decision to accept Ed?s resignation.  We explicitly agreed on the EC call last week that Ed?s language was explicit enough to interpret it as a complete resignation.  The point was discussed and decided.  Perhaps you should check the transcript if you don?t remember that.  That EC decision stands and it is another usurpation of this committee?s authority for you to attempt to over-turn it.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 8:52 PM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Dear Robin,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> With due respect I have to disagree.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> We made two formally conflicting decisions, we could
>>>>>>>>>> not let them both stand. The first, Tatiana's appointment,
>>>>>>>>>> was clear and unquestionable, the second, Ed's status,
>>>>>>>>>> much less so for a number of reasons.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think anybody would've been happy if I had
>>>>>>>>>> failed to appoint Tatiana because of the latter. Would you?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> But, I agree that Ed's message was clear enough regarding
>>>>>>>>>> his council seat, and he has indeed just confirmed it
>>>>>>>>>> in a message to James Bladel, so there's no need to
>>>>>>>>>> debate that any more.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> What we need to do, however, is to change Tatiana's
>>>>>>>>>> status from temporary alternate to temporary replacement.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31 15:34, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> The EC made a decision last week to accept Ed?s resignation and note it for the record.  You do not have the authority to over-turn the unanimous decision of the EC.  Decisions of the EC must be unanimous by all members of the committee.  After the committee has made a unanimous decision, the chair has no authority to ?undo? the decision, as you have attempted to do.  I don?t know what authority you think you have to over-turn a decision of the committee to accept his resignation from the NCSG.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, there is nothing unclear or ambiguous about Ed?s resignation.  Surely people don?t have to list every single list they are a member of before their resignation can be accepted. Ed's written resignation letter very explicitly said to remove him from ?ALL lists? and this unambiguously includes the membership list.  This resignation comes as no surprise as it was long foretold by Ed and others, and your attempts to revive his membership have gone unanswered by him.  The only one this resignation seems ?confused? to is you.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Robin,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> As I've already noted, Ed's email is not exactly clear, his talk in
>>>>>>>>>>>> Johannesburg much less so (saying he intends to resign is not same as
>>>>>>>>>>>> resigning, after all he'd said it many times before).
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> And our AOB talk on Friday was confused, in particular we didn't make
>>>>>>>>>>>> at all clear if we're talking about him leaving just the council or
>>>>>>>>>>>> his NCSG membership or what. So I want to do it properly.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 09:22:42AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I?m not sure where all the confusion and mystery is coming from.  Ed told many people in Joburg he was resigning, including yourself, which we discussed on this list.  Then he sent a resignation email to you on July 11 instructing you to remove him from all lists, which was forwarded to the EC weeks ago.  We don?t need for the EC to ?agree" to his resignation for it to take effect.  We on the EC cannot keep a person on the membership roles when they have explicitly instructed us to remove them.  As Ed had resigned in writing on 11 July, Tatiana?s appointment should have been presented as a replacement instead of alternate to begin with.  Let?s just change it to replacement and get on our work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 9:00 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joan,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, but first we'll have to work out Ed's removal properly,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and we do need a new decision, by current EC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What we could and probably should do is decide that Tatiana will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be appointed as replacement as soon as Ed's removal from the council
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is formally confirmed, so there'd be no danger of a gap in our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> council represenation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 11:24:06AM -0400, Joan Kerr (joankerr at fbsc.org <mailto:joankerr at fbsc.org>) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Tapani, All
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am responding to this email, because I was part of the meeting on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Friday.  I support Tatiana as replacement instead of alternate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Virus-free.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Staff has pointed out that we made a procedural error in our Friday
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meeting:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two decisions that are in conflict with each other, both cannot be let
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Specifically, like proxy, temporary alternate can only be appointed for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a councillor who's formally still in office. When a councillor resigns,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proxy assignments and temporary alternate appointments are nullified,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a temporary replacement (different from alternate) should be appointed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if we deem Ed to have resigned, Tatiana's appointment is void.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This should not be hard to fix, but as time is short, I am going to let
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tatiana's appointment stand as it is and set our decision regarding Ed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aside, or rather consider the latter to be mere discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The practical reason for this is obviously the need to have Tatiana
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in council for the vote tomorrow and we don't have time to make new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decisions before then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's also the formal point that member removal is a significant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decision, especially so when circumstances are unusual like now, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-trivial decisions should not be made as last-minute AOB items.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This should not be too hard to do properly, especially if we can agree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the list about Ed's status and replacement (changing Tatiana's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status from alternate to replacement), or otherwise let's put it on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next meeting agenda.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joan Kerr,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Social Entrepreneur, Humanitarian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> T: +1 (416) 907-0783
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Skype: joankerr_fbsc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fbsc.org, www.fbsc.eco
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chair: Victory Garden Leadership Implementation Team
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chair: IEEE Smart Villages Project, Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chair: Agricultural Track, IEEE Global Humanitarian Technology Conference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chair: ICANN Not for Profit Operational Concerns Constituency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Advisor, IEEE Humanitarian Initiatives Committee
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Advisor, Climate Smart Agriculture Youth Network, (CSAYN) Global
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Coordination Unit
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Tapani Tarvainen
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>>> 
>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec>
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Tapani Tarvainen
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-EC mailing list
>> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is>
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20170807/be8908ff/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Tue Aug  8 14:17:55 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 14:17:55 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Call for consensus: Tatiana Tropina as temporary
 replacement
In-Reply-To: <20170801035609.ou6at3icposuhnpw@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <20170801035609.ou6at3icposuhnpw@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <20170808111755.GA25606@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>

Dear Robin,

All but you have agreed to this.

If you have an objection, please raise it within one week (7 days).
Otherwise I'll assume your consent and notify the council.

(You are of course free to object on procedural groudnds as well as
substantive, if you think this kind of 7-day notice at this point is
not acceptable.)

Thank you,

Tapani

On Aug 01 06:56, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC (ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is) wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> As Ed Morris' resignation from the council has been confirmed,
> we need to appoint a temporary replament for him. If we can agree
> on the list, we can do it fast without having to do an extra call.
> 
> I therefore call for consensus on appointint Tatiana Tropina for the
> task. Quick responses would be appreciated.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen


From robin at ipjustice.org  Tue Aug  8 16:50:19 2017
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 06:50:19 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Call for consensus: Tatiana Tropina as temporary
	replacement
In-Reply-To: <20170808111755.GA25606@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
References: <20170801035609.ou6at3icposuhnpw@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <20170808111755.GA25606@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
Message-ID: <9D292DAD-80F5-480F-A91D-CF73D6E0B129@ipjustice.org>

Yes I did agree to this on the list.  You must not have seen it.

Robin


> On Aug 8, 2017, at 4:17 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> 
> Dear Robin,
> 
> All but you have agreed to this.
> 
> If you have an objection, please raise it within one week (7 days).
> Otherwise I'll assume your consent and notify the council.
> 
> (You are of course free to object on procedural groudnds as well as
> substantive, if you think this kind of 7-day notice at this point is
> not acceptable.)
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Aug 01 06:56, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC (ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is) wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> As Ed Morris' resignation from the council has been confirmed,
>> we need to appoint a temporary replament for him. If we can agree
>> on the list, we can do it fast without having to do an extra call.
>> 
>> I therefore call for consensus on appointint Tatiana Tropina for the
>> task. Quick responses would be appreciated.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> -- 
>> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec



From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Tue Aug  8 17:17:04 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2017 17:17:04 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Call for consensus: Tatiana Tropina as temporary
 replacement
In-Reply-To: <9D292DAD-80F5-480F-A91D-CF73D6E0B129@ipjustice.org>
References: <20170801035609.ou6at3icposuhnpw@roller.tarvainen.info>
 <20170808111755.GA25606@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>
 <9D292DAD-80F5-480F-A91D-CF73D6E0B129@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20170808141704.3z7dl6mgypa6k7aa@tarvainen.info>

Dear Robin,

My apologies, I must indeed have missed it.

Thank you for re-confirming, I have notified the council.

Tapani

On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 06:50:19AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> 
> Yes I did agree to this on the list.  You must not have seen it.
> 
> Robin
> 
> 
> > On Aug 8, 2017, at 4:17 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear Robin,
> > 
> > All but you have agreed to this.
> > 
> > If you have an objection, please raise it within one week (7 days).
> > Otherwise I'll assume your consent and notify the council.
> > 
> > (You are of course free to object on procedural groudnds as well as
> > substantive, if you think this kind of 7-day notice at this point is
> > not acceptable.)
> > 
> > Thank you,
> > 
> > Tapani
> > 
> > On Aug 01 06:56, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC (ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is) wrote:
> > 
> >> Dear all,
> >> 
> >> As Ed Morris' resignation from the council has been confirmed,
> >> we need to appoint a temporary replament for him. If we can agree
> >> on the list, we can do it fast without having to do an extra call.
> >> 
> >> I therefore call for consensus on appointint Tatiana Tropina for the
> >> task. Quick responses would be appreciated.
> >> 
> >> Thank you,
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Tapani Tarvainen


From robin at ipjustice.org  Wed Aug  9 19:03:58 2017
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 09:03:58 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-EC] call with the candidates in the NCSG Annual Election
Message-ID: <B2A287BF-46C1-4E44-A754-811E8BB8A4BE@ipjustice.org>

Tapani,

In most elections we usually hold a ?candidate call? so members can ask candidates questions and get an idea about their views on matters before they cast their ballots.  What are the plans for this year?s call with the candidates?

Thanks,
Robin

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Thu Aug 10 07:07:49 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 07:07:49 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] call with the candidates in the NCSG Annual Election
In-Reply-To: <B2A287BF-46C1-4E44-A754-811E8BB8A4BE@ipjustice.org>
References: <B2A287BF-46C1-4E44-A754-811E8BB8A4BE@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20170810040749.lp755no6p4oyakzm@roller.tarvainen.info>

Dear Robin,

Thank you for the reminder. That's indeed something missing
from the published timeline, but obviously the call would have
to be between end of nomination period and before voting begins,
that is, next week.

But it just occurred to me that given the set of candidates we have
now, it might actually make sense to have *two* such calls, one for
council and another one for chair candidates.

What do you all think?

Tapani

On Aug 09 09:03, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC (ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is) wrote:
> 
> Tapani,
> 
> In most elections we usually hold a ?candidate call? so members can ask candidates questions and get an idea about their views on matters before they cast their ballots.  What are the plans for this year?s call with the candidates?
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin


From robin at ipjustice.org  Fri Aug 11 00:47:41 2017
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 14:47:41 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-EC] call with the candidates in the NCSG Annual Election
In-Reply-To: <20170810040749.lp755no6p4oyakzm@roller.tarvainen.info>
References: <B2A287BF-46C1-4E44-A754-811E8BB8A4BE@ipjustice.org>
 <20170810040749.lp755no6p4oyakzm@roller.tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <5F84A3BC-2D55-4B62-954E-2A082DC9E88B@ipjustice.org>

Yes I think it makes sense to hold two separate calls for the two different positions up for election.  We could probably still hold the calls a couple days into the voting period if necessary, since people can change their votes up until the end of the voting period.  But the sooner, the better, for sure.

Thanks,
Robin

> On Aug 9, 2017, at 9:07 PM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> 
> Dear Robin,
> 
> Thank you for the reminder. That's indeed something missing
> from the published timeline, but obviously the call would have
> to be between end of nomination period and before voting begins,
> that is, next week.
> 
> But it just occurred to me that given the set of candidates we have
> now, it might actually make sense to have *two* such calls, one for
> council and another one for chair candidates.
> 
> What do you all think?
> 
> Tapani
> 
> On Aug 09 09:03, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC (ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is) wrote:
>> 
>> Tapani,
>> 
>> In most elections we usually hold a ?candidate call? so members can ask candidates questions and get an idea about their views on matters before they cast their ballots.  What are the plans for this year?s call with the candidates?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec



From robin at ipjustice.org  Tue Aug 15 18:23:36 2017
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 08:23:36 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Please include all candidates in your emails and on the
	wiki
Message-ID: <C8D32F58-3930-4A3B-9979-09B1FB4C474B@ipjustice.org>

Tapani,

Please include Michael Karanicolas on the wiki and in email discussions about organizing a candidate call, as he was nominated for GNSO Council on 1 August on the NCSG Discuss list.

He hasn?t been included in your organizing emails or on the wiki yet.

Thank you,
Robin



From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Tue Aug 15 18:31:45 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 18:31:45 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Please include all candidates in your emails and on
	the wiki
In-Reply-To: <C8D32F58-3930-4A3B-9979-09B1FB4C474B@ipjustice.org>
References: <C8D32F58-3930-4A3B-9979-09B1FB4C474B@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20170815153145.4socqjglqmifc55u@tarvainen.info>

Dear Robin,

Thank you - he'd indeed been accidentally omitted from the list of
candidates. :-(

Of course one point of the wiki page is to let you and everybody
notice and point out any errors, thank you for being diligent.

I asked Maryam to fix the wiki page (done already) and wrote
to Michael.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen

On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 08:23:36AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> 
> Tapani,
> 
> Please include Michael Karanicolas on the wiki and in email discussions about organizing a candidate call, as he was nominated for GNSO Council on 1 August on the NCSG Discuss list.
> 
> He hasn?t been included in your organizing emails or on the wiki yet.
> 
> Thank you,
> Robin
> 


From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Fri Aug 18 18:05:10 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 18:05:10 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Ballot draft
Message-ID: <20170818150510.aqjxppeinadxxhsd@tarvainen.info>

Dear EC,

Here's is planned ballot for the election. This has to be finalized
by Sunday, so quick comments would be appreciated.

Candidates are in alphabetical order. They could also be arranged by
the order of nomination or acceptance or randomized - opinions welcome.

Also, suggestions on possible additional explanatory text would be
appreciated.



NCSG Election 2017


**NCSG Chair**

Select at most *one* of the following candiates:

[ ] Farzaneh Badii
[ ] David Cake


**GNSO Council**

Select at most *four* (4) of the following candidates:

[ ] Ayden F?rdeline
[ ] Michael Karanicolas
[ ] Tatiana Tropina
[ ] Ars?ne Tungali
[ ] Martin Silva Valent


-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From robin at ipjustice.org  Fri Aug 18 19:51:40 2017
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 09:51:40 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Ballot draft
In-Reply-To: <20170818150510.aqjxppeinadxxhsd@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170818150510.aqjxppeinadxxhsd@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <4AB6732F-6907-4713-9441-5516C5DE202A@ipjustice.org>

Thanks.  Didn?t we say we would include an ?abstention" option on the ballot?

Best,
Robin

> On Aug 18, 2017, at 8:05 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> 
> Dear EC,
> 
> Here's is planned ballot for the election. This has to be finalized
> by Sunday, so quick comments would be appreciated.
> 
> Candidates are in alphabetical order. They could also be arranged by
> the order of nomination or acceptance or randomized - opinions welcome.
> 
> Also, suggestions on possible additional explanatory text would be
> appreciated.
> 
> 
> 
> NCSG Election 2017
> 
> 
> **NCSG Chair**
> 
> Select at most *one* of the following candiates:
> 
> [ ] Farzaneh Badii
> [ ] David Cake
> 
> 
> **GNSO Council**
> 
> Select at most *four* (4) of the following candidates:
> 
> [ ] Ayden F?rdeline
> [ ] Michael Karanicolas
> [ ] Tatiana Tropina
> [ ] Ars?ne Tungali
> [ ] Martin Silva Valent
> 
> 
> -- 
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec



From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Fri Aug 18 21:45:33 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 21:45:33 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Ballot draft
In-Reply-To: <4AB6732F-6907-4713-9441-5516C5DE202A@ipjustice.org>
References: <20170818150510.aqjxppeinadxxhsd@tarvainen.info>
 <4AB6732F-6907-4713-9441-5516C5DE202A@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20170818184533.nd5z4poolxazwlgn@tarvainen.info>

Hi Robin,

Abstention option is implied by the wording "at most", but I would
not object to making it more explicit. Would you like to suggest
a suitable wording?

Tapani


On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 09:51:40AM -0700, Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org) wrote:
> 
> Thanks.  Didn?t we say we would include an ?abstention" option on the ballot?
> 
> Best,
> Robin
> 
> > On Aug 18, 2017, at 8:05 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear EC,
> > 
> > Here's is planned ballot for the election. This has to be finalized
> > by Sunday, so quick comments would be appreciated.
> > 
> > Candidates are in alphabetical order. They could also be arranged by
> > the order of nomination or acceptance or randomized - opinions welcome.
> > 
> > Also, suggestions on possible additional explanatory text would be
> > appreciated.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > NCSG Election 2017
> > 
> > 
> > **NCSG Chair**
> > 
> > Select at most *one* of the following candiates:
> > 
> > [ ] Farzaneh Badii
> > [ ] David Cake
> > 
> > 
> > **GNSO Council**
> > 
> > Select at most *four* (4) of the following candidates:
> > 
> > [ ] Ayden F?rdeline
> > [ ] Michael Karanicolas
> > [ ] Tatiana Tropina
> > [ ] Ars?ne Tungali
> > [ ] Martin Silva Valent
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Tapani Tarvainen


From Monika.Zalnieriute at EUI.eu  Sat Aug 19 11:00:17 2017
From: Monika.Zalnieriute at EUI.eu (Zalnieriute, Monika)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 08:00:17 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Ballot draft
In-Reply-To: <4AB6732F-6907-4713-9441-5516C5DE202A@ipjustice.org>
References: <20170818150510.aqjxppeinadxxhsd@tarvainen.info>,
 <4AB6732F-6907-4713-9441-5516C5DE202A@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <HE1PR0501MB2010ABBBBFF53D654F3C00B9F6810@HE1PR0501MB2010.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>

Yes, I also remember that was our agreement.


Kind regards,



Dr. Monika Zalnieriute



Post-Doctoral Fellow @ Melbourne Law School |

The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I

185 Pelham St, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia I



Visiting Fellow @ Center for Media, Data and Society I

Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu I



Representative @ Executive Committee I

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org I










________________________________
From: NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> on behalf of Robin Gross via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 4:51 PM
To: Tapani Tarvainen
Cc: NCSG EC
Subject: Re: [NCSG-EC] Ballot draft

Thanks.  Didn?t we say we would include an ?abstention" option on the ballot?

Best,
Robin

> On Aug 18, 2017, at 8:05 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
>
> Dear EC,
>
> Here's is planned ballot for the election. This has to be finalized
> by Sunday, so quick comments would be appreciated.
>
> Candidates are in alphabetical order. They could also be arranged by
> the order of nomination or acceptance or randomized - opinions welcome.
>
> Also, suggestions on possible additional explanatory text would be
> appreciated.
>
>
>
> NCSG Election 2017
>
>
> **NCSG Chair**
>
> Select at most *one* of the following candiates:
>
> [ ] Farzaneh Badii
> [ ] David Cake
>
>
> **GNSO Council**
>
> Select at most *four* (4) of the following candidates:
>
> [ ] Ayden F?rdeline
> [ ] Michael Karanicolas
> [ ] Tatiana Tropina
> [ ] Ars?ne Tungali
> [ ] Martin Silva Valent
>
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec

_______________________________________________
NCSG-EC mailing list
NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20170819/b75e1530/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Sat Aug 19 13:22:59 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 13:22:59 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Ballot draft
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0501MB2010ABBBBFF53D654F3C00B9F6810@HE1PR0501MB2010.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20170818150510.aqjxppeinadxxhsd@tarvainen.info>
 <4AB6732F-6907-4713-9441-5516C5DE202A@ipjustice.org>
 <HE1PR0501MB2010ABBBBFF53D654F3C00B9F6810@HE1PR0501MB2010.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <20170819102259.ygthkvwk3fkjhrpw@tarvainen.info>

Hi,

We agreed to allow abstention, and the draft ballot does that,
although as I said I'd be happy to add explanatory text to
make it clearer.

If you mean there should be a separate "abstain" box, I don't
think we can do that. If you haven't followed the election-reform
list, please take a look at

https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/election-reform/2017-July/000023.html

My recollection is that we agreed to use option (1b) as the most
permissive choice that can be done without changing the charter.

Regards,

Tapani


On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 08:00:17AM +0000, Zalnieriute, Monika (Monika.Zalnieriute at EUI.eu) wrote:
> 
> Yes, I also remember that was our agreement.
> 
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. Monika Zalnieriute
> 
> 
> 
> Post-Doctoral Fellow @ Melbourne Law School |
> 
> The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au I
> 
> 185 Pelham St, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia I
> 
> 
> 
> Visiting Fellow @ Center for Media, Data and Society I
> 
> Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu I
> 
> 
> 
> Representative @ Executive Committee I
> 
> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> on behalf of Robin Gross via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 4:51 PM
> To: Tapani Tarvainen
> Cc: NCSG EC
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-EC] Ballot draft
> 
> Thanks.  Didn?t we say we would include an ?abstention" option on the ballot?
> 
> Best,
> Robin
> 
> > On Aug 18, 2017, at 8:05 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:
> >
> > Dear EC,
> >
> > Here's is planned ballot for the election. This has to be finalized
> > by Sunday, so quick comments would be appreciated.
> >
> > Candidates are in alphabetical order. They could also be arranged by
> > the order of nomination or acceptance or randomized - opinions welcome.
> >
> > Also, suggestions on possible additional explanatory text would be
> > appreciated.
> >
> >
> >
> > NCSG Election 2017
> >
> >
> > **NCSG Chair**
> >
> > Select at most *one* of the following candiates:
> >
> > [ ] Farzaneh Badii
> > [ ] David Cake
> >
> >
> > **GNSO Council**
> >
> > Select at most *four* (4) of the following candidates:
> >
> > [ ] Ayden F?rdeline
> > [ ] Michael Karanicolas
> > [ ] Tatiana Tropina
> > [ ] Ars?ne Tungali
> > [ ] Martin Silva Valent
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tapani Tarvainen


From robin at ipjustice.org  Sat Aug 19 20:00:29 2017
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 10:00:29 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Ballot draft
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0501MB2010ABBBBFF53D654F3C00B9F6810@HE1PR0501MB2010.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20170818150510.aqjxppeinadxxhsd@tarvainen.info>
 <4AB6732F-6907-4713-9441-5516C5DE202A@ipjustice.org>
 <HE1PR0501MB2010ABBBBFF53D654F3C00B9F6810@HE1PR0501MB2010.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <034E11AB-9A56-4FFD-87BC-77DA7DD892E5@ipjustice.org>

I would include an abstain option for the chair election.

Ideally for council election, we could have an initial gate-keeping option to vote or abstain from voting for that position, and if one chooses to abstain, then there wouldn't be an additional vote made (selection of candidates) for that position.  I don?t know if you have the capability to fix the ballot this late into the election however.

Thanks,
Robin

> On Aug 19, 2017, at 1:00 AM, Zalnieriute, Monika <Monika.Zalnieriute at EUI.eu> wrote:
> 
> Yes, I also remember that was our agreement.
> 
> Kind regards, 
>  
> Dr. Monika Zalnieriute
>  
> Post-Doctoral Fellow @ Melbourne Law School | 
> The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au <http://law.unimelb.edu.au/> I
> 185 Pelham St, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia I
>  
> Visiting Fellow @ Center for Media, Data and Society I
> Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu <http://cmds.ceu.edu/> I
>  
> Representative @ Executive Committee I
> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org <http://icann.org/> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec-bounces at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec-bounces at lists.ncsg.is>> on behalf of Robin Gross via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>>
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 4:51 PM
> To: Tapani Tarvainen
> Cc: NCSG EC
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-EC] Ballot draft
>  
> Thanks.  Didn?t we say we would include an ?abstention" option on the ballot?
> 
> Best,
> Robin
> 
> > On Aug 18, 2017, at 8:05 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>> wrote:
> > 
> > Dear EC,
> > 
> > Here's is planned ballot for the election. This has to be finalized
> > by Sunday, so quick comments would be appreciated.
> > 
> > Candidates are in alphabetical order. They could also be arranged by
> > the order of nomination or acceptance or randomized - opinions welcome.
> > 
> > Also, suggestions on possible additional explanatory text would be
> > appreciated.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > NCSG Election 2017
> > 
> > 
> > **NCSG Chair**
> > 
> > Select at most *one* of the following candiates:
> > 
> > [ ] Farzaneh Badii
> > [ ] David Cake
> > 
> > 
> > **GNSO Council**
> > 
> > Select at most *four* (4) of the following candidates:
> > 
> > [ ] Ayden F?rdeline
> > [ ] Michael Karanicolas
> > [ ] Tatiana Tropina
> > [ ] Ars?ne Tungali
> > [ ] Martin Silva Valent
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Tapani Tarvainen
> > _______________________________________________
> > NCSG-EC mailing list
> > NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is>
> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec>
>  
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20170819/29c6a6e4/attachment.htm>

From robin at ipjustice.org  Sat Aug 19 22:25:23 2017
From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 12:25:23 -0700
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Abu Dhabi Travel Support for Councilors
Message-ID: <7C7DDA32-4CD2-4726-9A1F-115961304A30@ipjustice.org>

Tapani,

I?ve been asked to check and make sure that the Abu Dhabi travel support provided for our GNSO Councilors included Tatiana.  Has Constituency Travel been informed that Ed's travel support for ICANN #60 has been re-allocated to his council replacement, Tatiana?  Also, do we know if any of our supported councilors will not in Abu Dhabi?

Thanks,
Robin

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Sun Aug 20 12:18:37 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 12:18:37 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Ballot draft
In-Reply-To: <034E11AB-9A56-4FFD-87BC-77DA7DD892E5@ipjustice.org>
References: <20170818150510.aqjxppeinadxxhsd@tarvainen.info>
 <4AB6732F-6907-4713-9441-5516C5DE202A@ipjustice.org>
 <HE1PR0501MB2010ABBBBFF53D654F3C00B9F6810@HE1PR0501MB2010.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
 <034E11AB-9A56-4FFD-87BC-77DA7DD892E5@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20170820091837.6qzvxey2ujizkjs2@tarvainen.info>

Dear Robin,

Unfortunately the ICANN voting software we're using doesn't allow that kind
of gate-keeping setup. All it can handle are tick boxes one can choose to
mark, or not.

A separate Abstain box would thus lead to the situation where there're
several different ways of expressing same intent: we'd have to decide
what to do in case someone doesn't select Abstain but also doesn't
select either of the candidates, or if someone selects Abstain and one
of the candidates. While it'd be possible to deal with those, it would
be hard to explain clearly and just add confusion, more so because
it'd differ from the council vote.

Instead a simple explanatory text, say "If you don't want to support
either candidate, leave both unmarked" or the like would be easy.

Tapani

On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 10:00:29AM -0700, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC (ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is) wrote:
> 
> I would include an abstain option for the chair election.
> 
> Ideally for council election, we could have an initial gate-keeping option to vote or abstain from voting for that position, and if one chooses to abstain, then there wouldn't be an additional vote made (selection of candidates) for that position.  I don?t know if you have the capability to fix the ballot this late into the election however.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> > On Aug 19, 2017, at 1:00 AM, Zalnieriute, Monika <Monika.Zalnieriute at EUI.eu> wrote:
> > 
> > Yes, I also remember that was our agreement.
> > 
> > Kind regards, 
> >  
> > Dr. Monika Zalnieriute
> >  
> > Post-Doctoral Fellow @ Melbourne Law School | 
> > The University of Melbourne I law.unimelb.edu.au <http://law.unimelb.edu.au/> I
> > 185 Pelham St, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia I
> >  
> > Visiting Fellow @ Center for Media, Data and Society I
> > Central European University I cmds.ceu.edu <http://cmds.ceu.edu/> I
> >  
> > Representative @ Executive Committee I
> > Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group I ICANN I icann.org <http://icann.org/> I
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From: NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec-bounces at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec-bounces at lists.ncsg.is>> on behalf of Robin Gross via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>>
> > Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 4:51 PM
> > To: Tapani Tarvainen
> > Cc: NCSG EC
> > Subject: Re: [NCSG-EC] Ballot draft
> >  
> > Thanks.  Didn?t we say we would include an ?abstention" option on the ballot?
> > 
> > Best,
> > Robin
> > 
> > > On Aug 18, 2017, at 8:05 AM, Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is>> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Dear EC,
> > > 
> > > Here's is planned ballot for the election. This has to be finalized
> > > by Sunday, so quick comments would be appreciated.
> > > 
> > > Candidates are in alphabetical order. They could also be arranged by
> > > the order of nomination or acceptance or randomized - opinions welcome.
> > > 
> > > Also, suggestions on possible additional explanatory text would be
> > > appreciated.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > NCSG Election 2017
> > > 
> > > 
> > > **NCSG Chair**
> > > 
> > > Select at most *one* of the following candiates:
> > > 
> > > [ ] Farzaneh Badii
> > > [ ] David Cake
> > > 
> > > 
> > > **GNSO Council**
> > > 
> > > Select at most *four* (4) of the following candidates:
> > > 
> > > [ ] Ayden F?rdeline
> > > [ ] Michael Karanicolas
> > > [ ] Tatiana Tropina
> > > [ ] Ars?ne Tungali
> > > [ ] Martin Silva Valent
> > > 
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Tapani Tarvainen


From plommer at gmail.com  Sun Aug 20 12:46:03 2017
From: plommer at gmail.com (Raoul Plommer)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 12:46:03 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Ballot draft
In-Reply-To: <20170818150510.aqjxppeinadxxhsd@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170818150510.aqjxppeinadxxhsd@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CADirp9RN5kvaU7fRWD6y6YbqCODm27i00=uOn9HHxe3z=nxKiQ@mail.gmail.com>

This choices look very clear to me. I think that abstention happens
intuitively by not voting for any candidates, but we can include a text
like Tapani suggested, or something else. The less we have boxes to tick,
the better I think.

"If you don't want to support either candidate, leave both unmarked" works
for me.

-Raoul

**NCSG Chair**
>
> Select at most *one* of the following candiates:
>
> [ ] Farzaneh Badii
> [ ] David Cake
>
>
> **GNSO Council**
>
> Select at most *four* (4) of the following candidates:
>
> [ ] Ayden F?rdeline
> [ ] Michael Karanicolas
> [ ] Tatiana Tropina
> [ ] Ars?ne Tungali
> [ ] Martin Silva Valent
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20170820/2a9a1374/attachment.htm>

From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Sun Aug 20 20:46:50 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2017 20:46:50 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Ballot draft 2
In-Reply-To: <CADirp9RN5kvaU7fRWD6y6YbqCODm27i00=uOn9HHxe3z=nxKiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170818150510.aqjxppeinadxxhsd@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <20170820174650.evaqieclbzom6mkl@tarvainen.info>

Dear all,

Here's what I'm going to go with now. If you spot critical typos or
have serious objections, act fast - this can still be changed until
early tomorrow (Monday) morning (UTC).


NCSG Election 2017


**NCSG Chair**

Select *at most one* of the following candidates.
(If you don't want to support either candidate,
leave both unselected.)

[ ] Farzaneh Badii
[ ] David Cake


**GNSO Council**

Select *at most four* (4) of the following candidates.

[ ] Ayden F?rdeline
[ ] Michael Karanicolas
[ ] Tatiana Tropina
[ ] Ars?ne Tungali
[ ] Martin Silva Valent



-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Mon Aug 21 12:27:56 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 12:27:56 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] GNSO Vice Chair election procedures
Message-ID: <20170821092756.GG17935@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>

Dear EC,

I tend to think subject matter belongs to Policy Committee as it's
councillors who will decide the issue in the end, but having EC
take a look as well would not hurt:

https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/2017-August/000808.html

Seems pretty uncontroversial to me and Rafik, but you may spot
something we haven't.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Tue Aug 22 11:38:21 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:38:21 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Abu Dhabi Travel Support for Councilors
In-Reply-To: <7C7DDA32-4CD2-4726-9A1F-115961304A30@ipjustice.org>
References: <7C7DDA32-4CD2-4726-9A1F-115961304A30@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <20170822083821.GA29173@tehanu.it.jyu.fi>

Hi all,

Following this up, Tatiana was already supported traveler as
NCUC EC member, I asked them to re-assign her travel slot
to NCSG as councillor, freeing the NCUC travel slot for
NCUC to use as they see fit.

Tapani

On Aug 19 12:25, Robin Gross via NCSG-EC (ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is) wrote:

> Tapani,
> 
> I?ve been asked to check and make sure that the Abu Dhabi travel support provided for our GNSO Councilors included Tatiana.  Has Constituency Travel been informed that Ed's travel support for ICANN #60 has been re-allocated to his council replacement, Tatiana?  Also, do we know if any of our supported councilors will not in Abu Dhabi?
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin


From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Fri Aug 25 12:20:03 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 12:20:03 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] NCSG EC meeting with select Board members in AUH
Message-ID: <20170825092003.bpejereq7hirs7z3@tarvainen.info>

Dear EC,

As usual we're having a meeting with "select Board members", that's
normally GNSO appointees, now Becky and Markus but in this case we'd
obviously want Matthew as incoming there as well.

Question: do we want to keep this meeting officially closed as it's
been in the past?

Last time we kept it closed but invited all NCSG members to attend,
and I think it'd be best now, too - if we make it public it means CSG
&co can be there as well.

Opinions?

This is somewhat urgent meeting requests should be done by Sunday.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info  Wed Aug 30 15:40:06 2017
From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 15:40:06 +0300
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Next EC meeting - suggesting 8 September at 1300
Message-ID: <20170830124006.um6ffgk3u4jaivha@tarvainen.info>

Dear EC,

We should have a meeting sometime soon. Looking at calendar and your
timezones, I'd like to suggest Friday 8 September at 1300-1430 UTC.

Please look at your calendars and let me know if it doesn't work for you.

(In general we've tried to avoid times that would be between midnight
and 6 am for anybody. With our current composition that leaves exactly
one hour in the day, namely 1300-1400 UTC.)

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


From plommer at gmail.com  Wed Aug 30 18:17:05 2017
From: plommer at gmail.com (Raoul Plommer)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 15:17:05 +0000
Subject: [NCSG-EC] Next EC meeting - suggesting 8 September at 1300
In-Reply-To: <20170830124006.um6ffgk3u4jaivha@tarvainen.info>
References: <20170830124006.um6ffgk3u4jaivha@tarvainen.info>
Message-ID: <CADirp9RPp7oUXZfFQDj7aOg4JF9pFZdL4fRG2ZW84uw8YYVRCQ@mail.gmail.com>

Works for me.

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 15:40 Tapani Tarvainen via NCSG-EC <
ncsg-ec at lists.ncsg.is> wrote:

> Dear EC,
>
> We should have a meeting sometime soon. Looking at calendar and your
> timezones, I'd like to suggest Friday 8 September at 1300-1430 UTC.
>
> Please look at your calendars and let me know if it doesn't work for you.
>
> (In general we've tried to avoid times that would be between midnight
> and 6 am for anybody. With our current composition that leaves exactly
> one hour in the day, namely 1300-1400 UTC.)
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-EC mailing list
> NCSG-EC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-ec
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-ec/attachments/20170830/bcd19c14/attachment.htm>