I am curious Milton -- since the Charter says none of this, where it is you think that the appeal takes priority or needs to be resolved first.  To be sure it needs to be resolved, per the Charter, but the Charter says absolutely nothing about precedence or priority and in the absence of Charter guidance I would tend to think that the EC (not the Chair but the EC) would determine how best to proceed and do so.  The community could, of course, challenge that as well (per the Charter) but in a dispute of this significance it is well not to read into the language of the founding documents our own procedural or substantive preferences

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
[log in to unmask]
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com
My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ 

-----Original Message-----
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 4:26 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: EC must meet as a whole

Amr, Klaus
A formal appeal is underway. Tapani's opinion about the election is just that: his personal opinion.
He is able to argue this before the EC, but it has no more validity than the opinion of any other EC member.

The procedure for resolving the status of the election is very clear. Here is the language of the charter:

2.4.2
By default NCSG EC decisions are made by full consensus of all NCSG EC Members....

2.4.2.1 Appeals of NCSG EC decisions

1. Any decision of the NCSG EC can be appealed by requesting a full vote of the NCSG membership. There are several ways in which an appeal can be initiated:
	• If 15 NCSG members, consisting of both organizational and individual members, request such an appeal the NCSG Executive Committee will first take the appeal under consideration.
	• If, after consideration of any documentation provided by those making the appeal, the NCSG EC does not reverse its decision, the NCSG EC and those making the appeal should attempt to negotiate a mutually agreeable solution.
	 If the NCSG EC and those making the appeal cannot reach a mutually acceptable agreement on the decision within 30 days, then an NCSG vote will be scheduled as soon as practicable.
	• For this type of appeal to succeed 60  of all of the NCSG members must approve of the appeal in a full membership vote as defined in section 4.0


LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THIS (since Tapani does not seem to know, or care, what is in the charter).

Tomorrow the EC decides whether to continue with the election. It needs FULL CONSENSUS, which means ALL EC members in agreement, to do that.
If EC cannot agree to continue the election, those making the appeal and the EC must try to negotiate a compromise solution.
If they cannot agree reach a mutually agreeable solution, then we have to hold a vote of the entire membership to resolve the issue.
This vote will supersede and interrupt the current election procedure. 
You cannot continue with a vote the validity of which is under appeal. You have to resolve the appeal first. 

I hope this is clear to all now. 

--MM


> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Amr Elsadr
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 3:02 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: EC must meet as a whole
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > On Aug 23, 2016, at 8:19 PM, Tapani Tarvainen
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> 
> [SNIP]
> 
> > Some people would like to change the ballot mid-election.
> >
> > An appeal has been filed and will be processed in due course as
> > described in our charter.
> >
> > But that is no reason to stop the election now.
> >
> > Just vote.
> >
> 
> I find this to be extremely disappointing, especially knowing that I have
> already voted, and I have no intention of changing my vote because
> someone says I have to.
> 
> My problem right now is that I've voted for two of the three councillors, as
> well as NOTA. If I understand the current process correctly, this means my
> vote for those two councillors will be invalid.
> 
> Since this seems to be the case, and we can only vote against the councillors
> as a slate, not individually, I wonder why the ballot allows us to choose
> councillors “and” NOTA, instead of councillors “or” NOTA?
> 
> I normally wouldn’t share my voting choices on a public list, but believe that
> under the current procedures, my ballot/vote does not now represent my
> actual choices.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr