Hello Tapani, A minor one on process, could you clarify the communication process between members and EC i.e is it the Chair that acts as the intermediary between EC and members? I believe what you have sent earlier is somewhat inline with the final text referenced on the EC list, perhaps the issue is that people are expecting to read from EC directly hence the possible confusion. Regards Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos On 28 Aug 2016 7:32 p.m., "Tapani Tarvainen" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear all, > > My apologies to all for being away from email for three days > mid-election. My inbox is rather overflowing, I can't deal with all of > it tonight, But I scanned quickly discussion on NCSG-EC list and as > far as I can see, there is no real disagreement on the substance of > the issue, decision EC made last Wednesday is clear enough and stands. > > Formal response to the appeal has, however, some technical details > or formalities if you like that we need to make sure we get right - > after all this is the first time such an appeal has been logded. > > I will try to get this sorted out as fast as possible, tomorrow > with any luck. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 10:42:37PM +0000, Mueller, Milton L ( > [log in to unmask]) wrote: > > > I read some of these messages and I am unable to understand what is > going on in EC. > > I was especially disturbed about this message from Joan Kerr: > > > > This is a great time to take a break and review the agreement we had on > the > > call. Perhaps then after reflection, we can address the response > directly > > and concisely. > > > > I am sorry, but I don’t see this as a great time to “take a break.” I, > and I think most of the SG, think this is the time to finish what you > started, and to realize that the SG’s unity and the legitimacy and respect > of the EC will be eroded if you don’t. > > > > The EC needs to issue a statement settling the appeal immediately. The > essence of the agreement was already conveyed to the NCSG by Tapani. I > cannot understand why the EC is dithering over this. > > > > --MM > > > > From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of > Tatiana Tropina > > Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 6:27 PM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: EC response to the By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on the > election process > > > > Dear all, > > > > Last week EC seemed to quickly resolve the Appeal on the election > process, that challenged the interpretation of NOTA votes. As far as I > remember, those who signed the appeal were told that they would get a > timely response from the EC which would seal this deal. > > > > However, up to now I have not seen anything coming from the EC on the > list on this matter. I checked the public archives, and I see that EC is > still debating how to word it's compromise. It worries me a bit because > world is moving on and we're going ahead with this election. When I read > the emails on the public NCSG EC thread, I really wonder what's going on > and whether EC is trying to, pardon me for the lame pun attempt, to > compromise the compromise. > > > > As far as I understand, yesterday EC almost agreed on sending the > response: http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/ > 001133.html > > > > However, today the temperature changed and I see that the text is still > debated and, frankly speaking, it does look like what we agreed upon is > still considered as not being agreed: > > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001134.html > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001140.html > > > > I know that it's weekend, but since I see that EC has been debating the > things today, may I kindly ask anyone from the EC update us on what is > actually happing with the EC response to the appeal? I believe those who > signed the appeal didn't submit it with the intent to wait till the end of > elections, when it will be too late. > > > > Thanks a lot! > > Warm regards > > > > Tatiana > > >