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 >> >