Shall I interpret that as an invitation to step down?  One of our 
problems, it seems to me, is the as yet un-discussed issue of why we do 
not have any contestants for these positions.  If it requires us 
un-fresh faces to get out of the way, then I propose we start the 
elections all over again.  I will step aside if everyone else does.  
Would be a great new start!!

Stephanie Perrin


On 2016-08-23 15:02, Klaus Stoll wrote:
[snip]
>
> Basically what I am asking for is a NCSG restart under a set of 
> previously agreed rules and if possible with a bunch of fresh new 
> faces without too much baggage.
>
> Yours
>
> Klaus
>
>
> On 8/23/2016 11:56 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>