Thank you for this, Robin. You have my full support and gratitude.

Amr

> On Aug 23, 2016, at 9:09 PM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> It is unfortunate that what began as one careless out-of-bounds comment from the chair on this list yesterday has had the effect of disenfranchising every NCSG’s member’s right to vote for or against any candidate, but that is why the appeal had to be launched: to restore meaning to our votes.
> 
> The entire NCSG Executive Committee is responsible for monitoring the elections, providing oversight to the election, and specifically overseeing the chair’s performance of executive functions under NCSG’s Charter.  Our charter is clear that it isn’t appropriate for the chair to unilaterally declare an interpretation of NOTA on this list - but it is especially disappointing that the interpretation provided renders every member’s vote for council meaningless.  Further concerning was the dismissive attitude displayed against those questioning his interpretation and the claim that NCSG elections are merely symbolic gestures.  But instead of fixing this unfortunate error, the chair seems to be digging in his heels on his interpretation of NOTA, which prevents members having the ability to vote for or against every candidate on the ballot.  It is the least democratic interpretation of NOTA possible. 
> 
> No rationale has been provided by the chair as to why this interpretation is best for our members or how it serves our members’ interest.  
> 
> I brought this issue to the NCSG EC list yesterday and asked for a meeting to be scheduled so we could work through it.  That request was denied and the chair said we’d use the email list to discus the issue instead, which is fine, except he declared the discussion closed within a few hours of opening it and before all the EC members could even wake-up to see the discussion let alone weigh in on this critical issue.
> 
> As we face a new interpretation of NOTA that does not take democracy or elections seriously, but only as a symbolic gesture, where everyone who runs automatically gets a seat, irrespective of whether there is sufficient support from the members to be represented by that person, the group of 21 members lodged the formal appeal of this decision to try to get this election back on track and restore the voting rights of members.  Now that the appeal has been launched the chair is calling for an EC meeting tomorrow, so I am hopeful we can get this straightened out quickly.
> 
> 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.
> 
> This seems to be to a reasonable compromise, which allows us go forward with the election now, but without the cloud of illegitimacy it will otherwise have if we use the new NOTA interpretation that disenfranchises our members.  Let’s find a constructive path forward and try to work cooperatively to fix this, not spend more time pointing fingers at each other, but in fixing this error.
>  
> Thanks,
> Robin Gross
> NCSG Executive Committee Member
> 
> 
>> On Aug 23, 2016, at 8:13 AM, James Gannon <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 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 <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
>