Hi, This is my personal opinion, as all opinion I made over the last days are mine alone and do not reflect the opinion of NPOC and its members, although we all had a great discussion about all this in NPOC. I agree with Milton that it is time to think about about solutions that will work for everybody involved. As I see it we have to have the interest of those we represent first in mind. I don't think we all served them particularly well over the last days and weeks, so its time to make up. What I get from all this is: We need a much better and well thought out and formulated charter We need to learn to treat each other with respect We need to learn to forgive and forget We need to learn to be better servants (please add as needed) Basically what I am asking for is a NCSG restart under a set of previously agreed rules and if possible with a bunch of fresh new faces without too much baggage. Yours Klaus On 8/23/2016 11:56 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Now we have a formal appeal of the EC “decision” to go ahead with the > election without fixing the ballot. > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1W6xVs0M2vZkzGnYY543BJQ0SOIfD-5xZYYaTYzZg-ok/ > > > Olevie is correct (see below) that the NCSG EC needs to take some > responsibility now and resolve the conflict. > > I note that Arsène has said that he is unaware of any formal decision > from the EC. I looked back at the records and he is correct, the EC > never made a decision. All we had was a unilateral statement from > Tapani that the discussion was “closed.” The problem is, Tapani does > not have the authority to unilaterally make a decision for the EC. I > see that both Robin and Monika, two members of the EC, have signed the > appeal letter, which shows very clearly that there is no consensus > within the EC for Tapani’s approach to this problem. > > This is a time and an issue where we need to achieve unity and > agreement. If the appeal is not resolved, the entire election will be > thrown out and we will have to have a vote of the entire membership on > the appeal. This will consume a lot of time and energy. Please, EC > members, Tapani, all of you, take responsibility and attempt to come > to a resolution of this problem. You have to get ALL the EC members > together and you have to find an agreement that works for all of you. > > Dr. Milton L Mueller > > Professor, School of Public Policy <http://spp.gatech.edu/> > > Georgia Institute of Technology > > Internet Governance Project > > http://internetgovernance.org/ > > *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf > Of *Kouami > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 23, 2016 11:31 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: ballots - history > > Dear Tapani > Thank you for sharing these concerns/issues with us. > It's clear that something nées to be harmonized at this level. > What are the others thinking ? > > Le 23 août 2016 02:49, "Tapani Tarvainen" <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> a écrit : > > 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 >