I admire your foresight about important issues and long term planing Wolfgang! What about going back to the 3 mega-PDPs (subsequent rounds, WHOIS and RPM) and to WS2???? It is VERY URGENT Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 25 Aug 2016, at 2:38, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Thanks Bill, > > this is very helpful. It is good to clear this procedural issue. But > it is more important that we return to substance as soon as possible. > Time is ripe to reconsider the priorities of our mid-term-agenda and > to move towards a post IANA transition 2020 NCSG strategy. > > Wolfgang > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von William Drake > Gesendet: Mi 24.08.2016 14:56 > An: [log in to unmask] > Betreff: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the > election process > > Hi > > This discussion has gotten a little overheated and hydra-headed with > stuff being thrown into the pot that distracts from the single issue > in contention. Let's not over-dramatize this, we're not at war with > each other, we don't need to throw up our hands or rewrite the whole > NCSG charter because of this, etc. We just have a collegial > disagreement on one thing, which is the interpretation of NOTA, and > how this is determined, and we ought to be able to work it out > together. > > Tapani's dig through list archives was helpful, but a narrow reading > of a few messages obscures more than enlightens. Yes, in 2011 when we > were working out the charter, Avri did suggest at one point that for > convenience we could just "skip" any NOTA votes > http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ncsg-discuss;73975b96.1110. > But in same message, she also agreed with Dan that NOTA "gets treated > as a kind of additional candidate itself," and that, "Voting for 'none > of the above' is explicit and is counted." Similarly, in a subsequent > message > http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1110&L=ncsg-discuss&D=0&P=118428 > she repeats, "As you said 'none' is just one 'candidate' among the > others. Nothing fancy. No cancellation of a person's vote." Nobody > disagreed, so that was it, the shared interpretation was that NOTA is > an individual candidate, and that ticking NOTA doesn't cancel one's > votes for all candidates. Her 'skipping' suggest never became > relevant, as we didn't imagine NOTA ever beating anyone, so the idea > wasn't discussed further. > > We never had any reason to revisit and reinterpret the meaning of > NOTA. Hence, when Robin and Rafik chaired, they too operated on the > same assumptions-it's a candidate, it is counted, and it does not > cancel out any other votes cast, just like in many other elections > around the world. And it wasn't just the chairs who thought this, it > was the other members who have been actually involved in doing the > substantive work of NCSG, the kind of people signed the hastily > assembled appeal letter, all of whom have been in fairly constant > communication with each other in the years since. So there has in > fact been a shared understanding, which is reflected in the chair's > Monday letter about "NCSG's Longstanding Interpretation of NOTA." > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001083.html > That subsequent ballots did not explain the meaning anew each time > NOTA was included, and that in 2013 NOTA somehow got left off the > ballot, is in retrospect rather unfortunate, but then we never > imagined a controversy over the matter. Either way, these oversights > do not in any way mean that the chairs and others did not know what > NOTA meant, or that they did not believe what they say they believed > and would not have acted accordingly if NOTA had ever won, which it > didn't. I am absolutely astonished that anyone would question whether > the chairs' statements about their understandings was "accurate," > especially people who were not involved and doing any of this work. > It is more than a little presumptuous. The chairs and other deeply > involved colleagues are not slow, confused children. > > It is in this context that we were all rather taken aback when Tapani > unilaterally announced without warning a completely opposite > interpretation of NOTA: > >> On Aug 22, 2016, at 15:58, Tapani Tarvainen >> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> If you want to vote for any candidates for council you cannot >> simultaneously vote for NOTA. If you do, your ballot will be >> considered invalid. > > > and added, > >> On Aug 22, 2016, at 18:33, Tapani Tarvainen >> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> I do see some people want to be able to cast negative votes so to >> speak and think NOTA is the way it could be done, but I don't agree >> with that. > > > I'm sorry, but with all due respect it is not the prerogative of the > chair to decide by himself without any consultation that the way we > have done things since 2011 is no good anymore simply because it > wasn't all spelled out and tidy in prior ballots. If the argument is > "well there's nothing formally written that says NOTA means X," how > can that be interpreted as a mandate for the chair to decide without > discussion that it now means Y? I cannot understand this thinking, > nor can I recall another instance in the history of NCSG and NCUC (no > idea about NPOC) where the chair took it upon himself to "overrule" > people and impose his/her own preferences. We are volunteers who are > here to be coordinated and facilitated, not ruled. > > The Charter says > > 2.1 The NCSG chair is responsible for carrying out the executive > functions of the NCSG under the NCSG-EC's oversight according to > ICANN, GNSO and NCSG mission and principles. > > 2.4.2. By default NCSGEC decisions are made by full consensus of all > NCSGEC members. Full consensus means that no NCSGEC members have > objected to the proposed decision. Any exception to this default will > be approved by the NCSGEC on a full consensus basis. > > 4.2 All NCSG votes will be held using an online voting system to be > determined, approved and supervised by the NCSG EC > > The Charter is crystal clear here. These things did not happen before > the ballot was sent out and must happen now, full stop. Especially if > the meaning of the ballot is to be changed. > > Finally, it's been asked why does the appeal letter refer to a "flawed > ballot" when, as Kathy has noted, the ballot this year and last year > were essentially the same. The answer is that the ballot is currently > flawed due to the interpretation given it by the chair, which is > contrary to past practice and has caused confusion. But there is a > simple solution that would not require a new ballot be designed and > sent: > >> On Aug 23, 2016, at 21:09, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> 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. > > All we need is for the Chair to accept that as there was no EC > agreement to the contrary, the long-standing interpretation of NOTA > stands. Anyone who wants to revote in light of this clarification > can do so by going to the URL they received. Subsequently, the EC can > propose whatever language it wants in order to clarify NOTA for the > next election. > > Please let's get out of this downward spiral, which absolutely did not > have to happen. It is not going to affect the outcome of the vote as > it's very unlikely anyone would actually lose to NOTA, but people do > need to be able to express their preferences in an election. > > Thanks > > Bill > > > > ************************************************************* > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > [log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *************************************************************