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
Georgia
Institute of Technology
Internet
Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org/
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]>
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