Hi,

Would the real compromise not look like this: NOTA votes do not spoil 
the ballot, NOTA votes have no power not force a rerun of the election 
of a candidate. (Basically the Avri position from 2011)

This way the old votes stand and its a compromise that hurts everybody 
equally. The best compromises are the ones all involved dislike most.

Just a thought

Klaus


On 8/23/2016 3:33 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Thank you for this, Robin. You have my full support and gratitude.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Aug 23, 2016, at 9:09 PM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask] 
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> It is unfortunate that what began as one careless out-of-bounds 
>> comment from the chair on this list yesterday has had the effect of 
>> disenfranchising every NCSG’s member’s right to vote for or against 
>> any candidate, but that is why the appeal had to be launched: to 
>> restore meaning to our votes.
>>
>> The entire NCSG Executive Committee is responsible for monitoring the 
>> elections, providing oversight to the election, and specifically 
>> overseeing the chair’s performance of executive functions under 
>> NCSG’s Charter.  Our charter is clear that it isn’t appropriate for 
>> the chair to unilaterally declare an interpretation of NOTA on this 
>> list - but it is especially disappointing that the interpretation 
>> provided renders every member’s vote for council meaningless. 
>>  Further concerning was the dismissive attitude displayed against 
>> those questioning his interpretation and the claim that NCSG 
>> elections are merely symbolic gestures.  But instead of fixing this 
>> unfortunate error, the chair seems to be digging in his heels on his 
>> interpretation of NOTA, which prevents members having the ability to 
>> vote for or against every candidate on the ballot.  It is the least 
>> democratic interpretation of NOTA possible.
>>
>> *No rationale has been provided by the chair as to why this 
>> interpretation is best for our members or how it serves our members’ 
>> interest. *
>>
>> I brought this issue to the NCSG EC list yesterday and asked for a 
>> meeting to be scheduled so we could work through it.  That request 
>> was denied and the chair said we’d use the email list to discus the 
>> issue instead, which is fine, except he declared the discussion 
>> closed within a few hours of opening it and before all the EC members 
>> could even wake-up to see the discussion let alone weigh in on this 
>> critical issue.
>>
>> As we face a new interpretation of NOTA that does not take democracy 
>> or elections seriously, but only as a symbolic gesture, where 
>> everyone who runs automatically gets a seat, irrespective of whether 
>> there is sufficient support from the members to be represented by 
>> that person, the group of 21 members lodged the formal appeal of this 
>> decision to try to get this election back on track and restore the 
>> voting rights of members.  Now that the appeal has been launched the 
>> chair is calling for an EC meeting tomorrow, so I am hopeful we can 
>> get this straightened out quickly.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> This seems to be to a reasonable compromise, which allows us go 
>> forward with the election now, but without the cloud of illegitimacy 
>> it will otherwise have if we use the new NOTA interpretation that 
>> disenfranchises our members.  Let’s find a constructive path forward 
>> and try to work cooperatively to fix this, not spend more time 
>> pointing fingers at each other, but in _fixing_ this error.
>> Thanks,
>> Robin Gross
>> NCSG Executive Committee Member
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 23, 2016, at 8:13 AM, James Gannon <[log in to unmask] 
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sam I suggest you read the letter from all 3 previous chairs of the 
>>> NCSG to the current EC (which has been dismissed by the current 
>>> chair) on that point:
>>>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001083.html
>>>
>>> _-James_
>>>
>>> From: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask] 
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Sam Lanfranco 
>>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> Reply-To: Sam Lanfranco <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> Date: Tuesday 23 August 2016 at 16:08
>>> To: "[log in to unmask] 
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>" 
>>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>>> Subject: Re: By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the election process
>>>
>>> The Group of 21
>>
>