Dear James I did make a point of not stating that I think that the previous 3 NCSG chairs are disingenuous, I only stated that there seems to be some discrepancy. Please don't misinterpret my words. I don't know which view is the nearest to what has actually happened. That is why I said people need to try to make up their own mind. Klaus On 8/23/2016 11:31 AM, James Gannon wrote: > Klaus, > I suggest that if you think that the 3 previous chairs of the NCSG are > being disingenuous in their statement to the EC that’s a pretty > serious claim. I doubt they sent such a letter without considering the > position very carefully, lets remember that these are the people we > elected to represent us all as our chairs for the last 6 years. > > _j > > From: Klaus Stoll <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > Date: Tuesday 23 August 2016 at 16:29 > To: James Gannon <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>, "[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 > > Dear James > > I might be wrong on this, but in Tapanis email regarding the history > of NOTA in the NCSG elections, the statements the three previous > chairs have made in their letter > > might not be compatible with what actually happened. I think everybody > needs to make up their own mind on this. > > Yours > > Klaus > > Here comes Tapanis mail again: > 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 . > > > On 8/23/2016 11:13 AM, James Gannon 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 >