Paul
If there's no difference between the two then why did the person who proposed the revision hold up the entire process with it?
Your comparison only focuses on the NOTA paragraph and does not include the entire letter. There were other changes.
I think what people were objecting to was that the final 2 paragraphs of the revised version eliminated all references to a compromise, and no longer asked whether the appellant's felt that their appeal had been satisfied. If those seemingly little changes are slipped in one has to wonder what the person who proposed them was thinking. Whoever proposed these changes did a great job of re-inflaming the mistrust that fueled the appeal to begin with.
Milton L Mueller
Professor, School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
On Aug 28, 2016, at 17:15, Paul Rosenzweig <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Im glad everyone has so much time on the weekend to nit-pick the process. Since we are asking for clarification, Id like to ask why anyone on the EC sees any difference between the first draft language below and the proposed revision? In other words, since they obviously mean the exact same thing, why is anyone in the EC concerned about either draft which seem to me just clarifications of each other?
Paul
FIRST DRAFT
which means that with respect to the election for
GNSO Council, those candidates who receive less votes than None of the
Above (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be elected to the GNSO Council in
this years election. Any candidate who ties with NOTA in number of votes
is elected.
SECOND DRAFT
In that
meeting, we decided a solution that addressed the nota votes to clarify for
the community that candidates *with less votes than nota lose, **and the*
*s**ame number as nota is enough to get in. **This solution **is to enable
the current election to continue and address the concerns in the Letter of
Appeal.*
Paul Rosenzweig
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
www.redbranchconsulting.com<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tamir Israel
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 1:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: EC response to the By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the election process
Hi,
Maybe someone from the exec committee can explain what (if anything) was wrong with the text as here:
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001133.html
Thanks,
Tamir
On 8/27/2016 6:42 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
I read some of these messages and I am unable to understand what is going on in EC.
I was especially disturbed about this message from Joan Kerr:
This is a great time to take a break and review the agreement we had on the
call. Perhaps then after reflection, we can address the response directly
and concisely.
I am sorry, but I don’t see this as a great time to “take a break.” I, and I think most of the SG, think this is the time to finish what you started, and to realize that the SG’s unity and the legitimacy and respect of the EC will be eroded if you don’t.
The EC needs to issue a statement settling the appeal immediately. The essence of the agreement was already conveyed to the NCSG by Tapani. I cannot understand why the EC is dithering over this.
--MM
From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tatiana Tropina
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 6:27 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: EC response to the By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the election process
Dear all,
Last week EC seemed to quickly resolve the Appeal on the election process, that challenged the interpretation of NOTA votes. As far as I remember, those who signed the appeal were told that they would get a timely response from the EC which would seal this deal.
However, up to now I have not seen anything coming from the EC on the list on this matter. I checked the public archives, and I see that EC is still debating how to word it's compromise. It worries me a bit because world is moving on and we're going ahead with this election. When I read the emails on the public NCSG EC thread, I really wonder what's going on and whether EC is trying to, pardon me for the lame pun attempt, to compromise the compromise.
As far as I understand, yesterday EC almost agreed on sending the response: http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001133.html
However, today the temperature changed and I see that the text is still debated and, frankly speaking, it does look like what we agreed upon is still considered as not being agreed:
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001134.html
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001140.html
I know that it's weekend, but since I see that EC has been debating the things today, may I kindly ask anyone from the EC update us on what is actually happing with the EC response to the appeal? I believe those who signed the appeal didn't submit it with the intent to wait till the end of elections, when it will be too late.
Thanks a lot!
Warm regards
Tatiana
|
