Thanks Bill,

this is very helpful. It is good to clear this procedural issue. But it is more important that we return to substance as soon as possible. Time is ripe to reconsider the priorities of our mid-term-agenda and to move towards a post IANA transition 2020 NCSG strategy.

Wolfgang






-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von William Drake
Gesendet: Mi 24.08.2016 14:56
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the election process
 
Hi

This discussion has gotten a little overheated and hydra-headed with stuff being thrown into the pot that distracts from the single issue in contention.  Let's not over-dramatize this, we're not at war with each other, we don't need to throw up our hands or rewrite the whole NCSG charter because of this, etc.  We just have a collegial disagreement on one thing, which is the interpretation of NOTA, and how this is determined, and we ought to be able to work it out together.

Tapani's dig through list archives was helpful, but a narrow reading of a few messages obscures more than enlightens.  Yes, in 2011 when we were working out the charter, Avri did suggest at one point that for convenience we could just "skip" any NOTA votes http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ncsg-discuss;73975b96.1110.  But in same message, she also agreed with Dan that NOTA "gets treated as a kind of additional candidate itself," and that, "Voting for 'none of the above' is explicit and is counted."  Similarly, in a subsequent message http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1110&L=ncsg-discuss&D=0&P=118428 she repeats, "As you said 'none' is just one 'candidate' among the others. Nothing fancy. No cancellation of a person's vote."  Nobody disagreed, so that was it, the shared interpretation was that NOTA is an individual candidate, and that ticking NOTA doesn't cancel one's votes for all candidates.  Her 'skipping' suggest never became relevant, as we didn't imagine NOTA ever beating anyone, so the idea wasn't discussed further.  

We never had any reason to revisit and reinterpret the meaning of NOTA.  Hence, when Robin and Rafik chaired, they too operated on the same assumptions-it's a candidate, it is counted, and it does not cancel out any other votes cast, just like in many other elections around the world.  And it wasn't just the chairs who thought this, it was the other members who have been actually involved in doing the substantive work of NCSG, the kind of people signed the hastily assembled appeal letter, all of whom have been in fairly constant communication with each other in the years since.  So there has in fact been a shared understanding, which is reflected in the chair's Monday letter about "NCSG's Longstanding Interpretation of NOTA."  http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001083.html  That subsequent ballots did not explain the meaning anew each time NOTA was included, and that in 2013 NOTA somehow got left off the ballot, is in retrospect rather unfortunate, but then we never imagined a controversy over the matter.  Either way, these oversights do not in any way mean that the chairs and others did not know what NOTA meant, or that they did not believe what they say they believed and would not have acted accordingly if NOTA had ever won, which it didn't.  I am absolutely astonished that anyone would question whether the chairs' statements about their understandings was "accurate," especially people who were not involved and doing any of this work.  It is more than a little presumptuous.  The chairs and other deeply involved colleagues are not slow, confused children.

It is in this context that we were all rather taken aback when Tapani unilaterally announced without warning a completely opposite interpretation of NOTA:

> On Aug 22, 2016, at 15:58, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> If you want to vote for any candidates for council you cannot
> simultaneously vote for NOTA. If you do, your ballot will be
> considered invalid.


and added,

> On Aug 22, 2016, at 18:33, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> I do see some people want to be able to cast negative votes so to
> speak and think NOTA is the way it could be done, but I don't agree
> with that.


I'm sorry, but with all due respect it is not the prerogative of the chair to decide by himself without any consultation that the way we have done things since 2011 is no good anymore simply because it wasn't all spelled out and tidy in prior ballots.  If the argument is "well there's nothing formally written that says NOTA means X," how can that be interpreted as a mandate for the chair to decide without discussion that it now means Y?  I cannot understand this thinking, nor can I recall another instance in the history of NCSG and NCUC (no idea about NPOC) where the chair took it upon himself to "overrule" people and impose his/her own preferences.  We are volunteers who are here to be coordinated and facilitated, not ruled.   

The Charter says 

2.1 The NCSG chair is responsible for carrying out the executive functions of the NCSG under the NCSG-EC's oversight according to ICANN, GNSO and NCSG mission and principles.

2.4.2. By default NCSGEC decisions are made by full consensus of all NCSGEC members. Full consensus means that no NCSGEC members have objected to the proposed decision. Any exception to this default will be approved by the NCSGEC on a full consensus basis.

4.2  All NCSG votes will be held using an online voting system to be determined, approved and supervised by the NCSG EC

The Charter is crystal clear here.  These things did not happen before the ballot was sent out and must happen now, full stop.  Especially if the meaning of the ballot is to be changed.

Finally, it's been asked why does the appeal letter refer to a "flawed ballot" when, as Kathy has noted, the ballot this year and last year were essentially the same.  The answer is that the ballot is currently flawed due to the interpretation given it by the chair, which is contrary to past practice and has caused confusion.  But there is a simple solution that would not require a new ballot be designed and sent:

> On Aug 23, 2016, at 21:09, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 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.

All we need is for the Chair to accept that as there was no EC agreement to the contrary, the long-standing interpretation of NOTA stands.   Anyone who wants to revote in light of this clarification can do so by going to the URL they received. Subsequently, the EC can propose whatever language it wants in order to clarify NOTA for the next election.  

Please let's get out of this downward spiral, which absolutely did not have to happen.  It is not going to affect the outcome of the vote as it's very unlikely anyone would actually lose to NOTA, but people do need to be able to express their preferences in an election.

Thanks

Bill



*************************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
[log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
*************************************************************