Shall I interpret that as an invitation to step down? One of our problems, it seems to me, is the as yet un-discussed issue of why we do not have any contestants for these positions. If it requires us un-fresh faces to get out of the way, then I propose we start the elections all over again. I will step aside if everyone else does. Would be a great new start!! Stephanie Perrin On 2016-08-23 15:02, Klaus Stoll wrote: [snip] > > 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 >> >