I admire your foresight about important issues and long term planing
Wolfgang!
What about going back to the 3 mega-PDPs (subsequent rounds, WHOIS and
RPM) and to WS2???? It is VERY URGENT
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
On 25 Aug 2016, at 2:38, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
> Thanks Bill,
>
> this is very helpful. It is good to clear this procedural issue. But
> it is more important that we return to substance as soon as possible.
> Time is ripe to reconsider the priorities of our mid-term-agenda and
> to move towards a post IANA transition 2020 NCSG strategy.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von William Drake
> Gesendet: Mi 24.08.2016 14:56
> An: [log in to unmask]
> Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the
> election process
>
> Hi
>
> This discussion has gotten a little overheated and hydra-headed with
> stuff being thrown into the pot that distracts from the single issue
> in contention. Let's not over-dramatize this, we're not at war with
> each other, we don't need to throw up our hands or rewrite the whole
> NCSG charter because of this, etc. We just have a collegial
> disagreement on one thing, which is the interpretation of NOTA, and
> how this is determined, and we ought to be able to work it out
> together.
>
> Tapani's dig through list archives was helpful, but a narrow reading
> of a few messages obscures more than enlightens. Yes, in 2011 when we
> were working out the charter, Avri did suggest at one point that for
> convenience we could just "skip" any NOTA votes
> http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ncsg-discuss;73975b96.1110.
> But in same message, she also agreed with Dan that NOTA "gets treated
> as a kind of additional candidate itself," and that, "Voting for 'none
> of the above' is explicit and is counted." Similarly, in a subsequent
> message
> http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1110&L=ncsg-discuss&D=0&P=118428
> she repeats, "As you said 'none' is just one 'candidate' among the
> others. Nothing fancy. No cancellation of a person's vote." Nobody
> disagreed, so that was it, the shared interpretation was that NOTA is
> an individual candidate, and that ticking NOTA doesn't cancel one's
> votes for all candidates. Her 'skipping' suggest never became
> relevant, as we didn't imagine NOTA ever beating anyone, so the idea
> wasn't discussed further.
>
> We never had any reason to revisit and reinterpret the meaning of
> NOTA. Hence, when Robin and Rafik chaired, they too operated on the
> same assumptions-it's a candidate, it is counted, and it does not
> cancel out any other votes cast, just like in many other elections
> around the world. And it wasn't just the chairs who thought this, it
> was the other members who have been actually involved in doing the
> substantive work of NCSG, the kind of people signed the hastily
> assembled appeal letter, all of whom have been in fairly constant
> communication with each other in the years since. So there has in
> fact been a shared understanding, which is reflected in the chair's
> Monday letter about "NCSG's Longstanding Interpretation of NOTA."
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001083.html
> That subsequent ballots did not explain the meaning anew each time
> NOTA was included, and that in 2013 NOTA somehow got left off the
> ballot, is in retrospect rather unfortunate, but then we never
> imagined a controversy over the matter. Either way, these oversights
> do not in any way mean that the chairs and others did not know what
> NOTA meant, or that they did not believe what they say they believed
> and would not have acted accordingly if NOTA had ever won, which it
> didn't. I am absolutely astonished that anyone would question whether
> the chairs' statements about their understandings was "accurate,"
> especially people who were not involved and doing any of this work.
> It is more than a little presumptuous. The chairs and other deeply
> involved colleagues are not slow, confused children.
>
> It is in this context that we were all rather taken aback when Tapani
> unilaterally announced without warning a completely opposite
> interpretation of NOTA:
>
>> On Aug 22, 2016, at 15:58, Tapani Tarvainen
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> If you want to vote for any candidates for council you cannot
>> simultaneously vote for NOTA. If you do, your ballot will be
>> considered invalid.
>
>
> and added,
>
>> On Aug 22, 2016, at 18:33, Tapani Tarvainen
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> I do see some people want to be able to cast negative votes so to
>> speak and think NOTA is the way it could be done, but I don't agree
>> with that.
>
>
> I'm sorry, but with all due respect it is not the prerogative of the
> chair to decide by himself without any consultation that the way we
> have done things since 2011 is no good anymore simply because it
> wasn't all spelled out and tidy in prior ballots. If the argument is
> "well there's nothing formally written that says NOTA means X," how
> can that be interpreted as a mandate for the chair to decide without
> discussion that it now means Y? I cannot understand this thinking,
> nor can I recall another instance in the history of NCSG and NCUC (no
> idea about NPOC) where the chair took it upon himself to "overrule"
> people and impose his/her own preferences. We are volunteers who are
> here to be coordinated and facilitated, not ruled.
>
> The Charter says
>
> 2.1 The NCSG chair is responsible for carrying out the executive
> functions of the NCSG under the NCSG-EC's oversight according to
> ICANN, GNSO and NCSG mission and principles.
>
> 2.4.2. By default NCSGEC decisions are made by full consensus of all
> NCSGEC members. Full consensus means that no NCSGEC members have
> objected to the proposed decision. Any exception to this default will
> be approved by the NCSGEC on a full consensus basis.
>
> 4.2 All NCSG votes will be held using an online voting system to be
> determined, approved and supervised by the NCSG EC
>
> The Charter is crystal clear here. These things did not happen before
> the ballot was sent out and must happen now, full stop. Especially if
> the meaning of the ballot is to be changed.
>
> Finally, it's been asked why does the appeal letter refer to a "flawed
> ballot" when, as Kathy has noted, the ballot this year and last year
> were essentially the same. The answer is that the ballot is currently
> flawed due to the interpretation given it by the chair, which is
> contrary to past practice and has caused confusion. But there is a
> simple solution that would not require a new ballot be designed and
> sent:
>
>> On Aug 23, 2016, at 21:09, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> If we can accept the definition of NOTA as explained by Avri, Rafik,
>> and myself, who were the previous EC Chairs and were involved in the
>> drafting of the charter, an interpretation which provides members
>> REAL choice, not merely symbolic gestures in our elections, we
>> probably don't need to redo the ballots for this year, and we can
>> just continue with the understanding those candidates who receive
>> less votes than NOTA are not elected this year. So we can fix our
>> ballots for next year, but use the NOTA interpretation which restores
>> the right of members to approve (or not) of the candidates for this
>> year.
>
> All we need is for the Chair to accept that as there was no EC
> agreement to the contrary, the long-standing interpretation of NOTA
> stands. Anyone who wants to revote in light of this clarification
> can do so by going to the URL they received. Subsequently, the EC can
> propose whatever language it wants in order to clarify NOTA for the
> next election.
>
> Please let's get out of this downward spiral, which absolutely did not
> have to happen. It is not going to affect the outcome of the vote as
> it's very unlikely anyone would actually lose to NOTA, but people do
> need to be able to express their preferences in an election.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill
>
>
>
> *************************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
> University of Zurich, Switzerland
> [log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists),
> www.williamdrake.org
> *************************************************************
|