Klaus,

I suggest that if you think that the 3 previous chairs of the NCSG are being disingenuous in their statement to the EC that’s a pretty serious claim. I doubt they sent such a letter without considering the position very carefully, lets remember that these are the people we elected to represent us all as our chairs for the last 6 years.



_j



From: Klaus Stoll <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>

Date: Tuesday 23 August 2016 at 16:29

To: James Gannon <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>

Subject: Re: By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the election process





Dear James



I might be wrong on this, but in Tapanis email regarding the history of NOTA in the NCSG elections, the statements the three previous chairs have made in their letter



might not be compatible with what actually happened. I think everybody needs to make up their own mind on this.



Yours



Klaus



Here comes Tapanis mail again:



Dear all,



As I've been accused of abruptly changing claimed long-established

precedent in the treatment of NOTA, I looked at how it's been done

in past NCSG elections since 2011.



The only case where I found the impact of NOTA explicitly addressed

by the Chair running the election was in 2011. Chair then was Avri

Doria and she put it like this:



"In the case of the g-council vote, the decision is to pick the top 4

people. So if 'none of the above' comes in in any of the top 4 places,

I suggest that it just gets skipped and the top 4 vote getters become

the g-council representative. It is just that those who got fewer

votes than none of the above, will have a clue about how hard they

will have to work in order to represent the membership."



http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1110&L=ncsg-discuss&D=0&P=115980



In 2012 the ballot, run by Robin, was organized differently:

candidates were explicitly selected by region, with separate NOTA for

each. No explanation seems to have been offered as to what NOTA means.

(I can't now find the ballot in the web, only in my personal mail

archive.)



In 2013 ballot was again run by Robin, this time with similar style as

today with a common pool of council candidates, but there was no NOTA

option at all.



http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A3=ind1310&L=NCSG-DISCUSS&E=base64&P=1735682&B=--Apple-Mail%3D_BE8CECBD-76B4-4895-954A-1A242E2FEF7E&T=application%2Fpdf;%20name=%22NCSG%20Election%20results%20October%202013.pdf%22&N=NCSG%20Election%20results%20October%202013.pdf&XSS=3



In 2014, run by Rafik, there was one common NOTA for all council

candidates, but no mention of it in the instructions.



http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1409&L=ncsg-discuss&F=&S=&X=31BCBB9C87C143B93B&P=1055



In 2015, again by Rafik, similar to 2014, except this time NOTA was

mentioned in his instructions - but without any explanation as to how

it would be treated, only stating that 'In each list (Chair, GNSO

councillors), you will also find the "none of the above" option.'



http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1509&L=ncsg-discuss&F=&S=&X=24E79EEDA4AE17FE9E&P=5880



Absent explicit instructions to the contrary I took "None of the Above"

literally: that you don't want to vote any of the candidates listed above.



So, out of five past elections, in one it was explicitly stated NOTA

victory would not actually impact councillor election, in one case

there was no NOTA option, one was different enough from current that

it's not really useful as a precedent, and in the remaining two

there was no explanation of what a NOTA vote or NOTA victory would mean.



Given such variance in past practices I don't see the present one

as a radical departure from any established process.



I do accept the chastisement of not having established the process

properly, however, and pledge to do so before the next election,

if I remain the Chair.





--

Tapani Tarvainen

.









On 8/23/2016 11:13 AM, James Gannon wrote:

Sam I suggest you read the letter from all 3 previous chairs of the NCSG to the current EC (which has been dismissed by the current chair) on that point:



http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001083.html



-James



From: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>

Reply-To: Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>

Date: Tuesday 23 August 2016 at 16:08

To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>

Subject: Re: By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the election process



The Group of 21