Now we have a formal appeal of the EC “decision” to go ahead with the election without fixing the ballot.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W6xVs0M2vZkzGnYY543BJQ0SOIfD-5xZYYaTYzZg-ok/



Olevie is correct (see below) that the NCSG EC needs to take some responsibility now and resolve the conflict.



I note that Arsène has said that he is unaware of any formal decision from the EC. I looked back at the records and he is correct, the EC never made a decision. All we had was a unilateral statement from Tapani that the discussion was “closed.” The problem is, Tapani does not have the authority to unilaterally make a decision for the EC. I see that both Robin and Monika, two members of the EC, have signed the appeal letter, which shows very clearly that there is no consensus within the EC for Tapani’s approach to this problem.



This is a time and an issue where we need to achieve unity and agreement. If the appeal is not resolved, the entire election will be thrown out and we will have to have a vote of the entire membership on the appeal. This will consume a lot of time and energy. Please, EC members, Tapani, all of you, take responsibility and attempt to come to a resolution of this problem. You have to get ALL the EC members together and you have to find an agreement that works for all of you.



Dr. Milton L Mueller

Professor, School of Public Policy<http://spp.gatech.edu/>

Georgia Institute of Technology

Internet Governance Project

http://internetgovernance.org/







From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kouami

Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 11:31 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: ballots - history





Dear Tapani

Thank  you for sharing these concerns/issues with us.

It's clear that something nées to be harmonized at this level.

What are the others thinking ?

Le 23 août 2016 02:49, "Tapani Tarvainen" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> a écrit :

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