After being questioned further about this off list, I realized that the explanation below is not accurate.

Had these applications been processed earlier, they might have affected the vote.  And some were submitted in time for this vote, but for a variety of reasons* were not accepted.  None of these, I beleive, were submitted in time for the charter ballot.

What I should have explained in response to Joly's questions was that after the deadline for this vote passed in mid September, there was no reason, in relation this vote, in pushing the NCSG-EC, which appears relatively dormant, to have continued processing applications - as at this point, the acceptance would not have come in time to affect this vote.

avri

* note: as I took no position on the new applications,  I leave it up to the members of the NCSG-EC to explain their reasons for not approving applicants.


On 16 Oct 2011, at 07:25, Avri Doria wrote:

> extra not in a revised sentence.
> 
> None of these applications would have affected the current vote as they came in to late to do so.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 16 Oct 2011, at 03:30, Joly MacFie wrote:
> 
>> ?
>> 
>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> none of these applications would not have affected the current vote.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
>> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
>> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
>> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> -