To start with, I'm disappointed in the process here.  I urge people to clearly cite and quote charter requirements, previous precedent on the meaning of NOTA, etc etc.

I'm looking at what Google suggests is our Charter:

  http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf

Is that the correct up-to-date document?

Parenthetically, I must say I'm having a hard time copy-pasting from it.  Spaces show up as "!" when copying from Google's PDF viewer, and dashes as "%".  And using evince, I get a control-M character interspersed between each word.

Recently, (Aug 22, 2016 at 05:22:56PM +0000) Mueller, Milton L wrote:
> Actually it looks as if the EC never formally approved the ballot, which is a clear violation of the charter.

Milton, can you clarify what language in the Charter that violates?

I don't yet know what I think of the NOTA option for a multi-winner election.  I can't find any other clear examples of this sort of rule being used, but I don't know the background for all the countries and elections noted in Wikipedia:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/None_of_the_above

I'll say that the charter has some pretty bad language around elections, viewed in retrospect via this issue.  E.g. it seems to suggest that the only valid way to mark a ballot is to vote for exactly 3 candidates in this case.  I don't know if "NOTA" would pass muster as being a candidate, especially if it can't win.

4.3 Election for NCSG GNSO Council Representatives (size, number, and distribution of votes):
In the discussion below, N refers to the number of seats that need to be elected. 
Optimally N will equal 3 seats in years with normal rotation. Any number of reasons can cause this number to vary.
• NCSG members classified as “individuals” will be given N votes and must assign 1 vote to each of N candidates.
• NCSG members classified as “small organizations” will be given 2N votes and must assign exactly 2 votes to each of N candidates.
• NCSG members classified as “large organizations” will be given 4N votes and must assign exactly 4 votes to each of N candidates.

Will we really throw out ballots that only mark two candidates?

I see this text there, to support the "15-member" rule that has been cited:

2.4.2.1 Appeals of NCSG-EC decisions
1. Any decision of the NCSG-EC can be appealed by requesting a full vote of the NCSG membership. There are several ways in which an appeal can be initiated:
• If 15 NCSG members, consisting of both organizational and individual members, request such an appeal the NCSG Executive Committee will first take the appeal under consideration.
• If, after consideration of any documentation provided by those making the appeal, the NCSG-EC does not reverse its decision, the NCSG-EC and those making the appeal should attempt to negotiate a mutually agreeable solution.
• If the NCSG-EC and those making the appeal cannot reach a mutually acceptable agreement on the decision within 30 days, then an NCSG vote will be scheduled as soon as practicable.
• For this type of appeal to succeed 60% of all of the NCSG members must approve of the appeal in a full membership vote as defined in section 4.0.

Looking forward to more clarity here....

Neal McBurnett                 http://neal.mcburnett.org/

> I understand the tendency to "let the chair do all the work" but there is a reason we wrote the charter to require EC approval of ballots. 
> We had some prior controversies and wanted multiple eyes looking at the ballot before it was sent out.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > 
> > I object to the EC and the Chair changing practice without a specific discussion
> > among the members to do so.  This was sprung on us and then declared a
> > done deal by executive decision.  I wish to challenge that executive decision.
> > Elections are among the most important things we do.
> > 
> > avri