NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:54:18 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (32 lines)
Tapani did post this yesterday:

The Executive Committee of NCSG has decided that in the GNSO council
elections, voters may choose up three options, including candidates
and None of the Above. Any candidate getting less None of the Above
will be considered not elected.

...

Election will proceed uninterrupted. If you have already voted you
don't need to do anything, but you can vote again if you think
this makes a difference - only the last vote will count.

Are we to doubt him on a simple statement of fact (not interpretation or 
opinion)?  I've seen no contradiction from any EC member on this.  I'm 
happy to take this on the face as accurate.

Dan


On 8/25/16 11:39 AM, James Gannon wrote:
> Just for the record the EC has not yet shared its consensus communications on the process and ballot information.
>
> -james
>
>
>
>
> On 25/08/2016, 18:27, "NCSG-Discuss on behalf of Neal McBurnett" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> But I think we should to stick to the consensus EC procedural decisions that have been communicated.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2