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
> *************************************************************