Paul, The motivation for the appeal was primarily about process, from the get-go (it's not that likely that NotA will actually have a practical effect in this election, though certainly not impossible). The EC-suggested changes include some that are indeed substantive with respect to process (administrative process, not electoral process), and would set a historical precedent that would influence similar situations in the future, since this is the first time such an appeal has been lodged. It is important for the EC to explicitly acknowledge that there was a compromise (appellants did not get everything we asked for) and that the appeal was settled, not withdrawn. Why should the EC object to such a characterization? It is an accurate one, and should be a clear part of the historical record. This is all about the working relationship between the EC and members at large when a dispute arises, and details such as this are important to get right at the outset. As an original signer of the appeal, I approve of getting this worked out explicitly, and not just letting it slide. If we're "making sausage" here, then let's put it on the record without any whitewash! Dan On 8/29/16 5:57 AM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote: > > Really? That’s your best argument? That two ministerial changes in > the last paragraphs that have no effect on substance have somehow > “re-inflam[ed]” your mistrust. Exactly why? You object to this > compromise not being called a compromise and not being asked if you > are satisfied, as if you need validation? That’s hardly grounds for > mistrust. > > I have no idea why one person on the EC suggested these changes; I > have no idea either why you are objecting. For the most part they > look like a fight over whether to use “happy” or “glad” in a sentence > – it seems some people are just looking for a fight. > > Here's a thought: Since, substantively, the letter is exactly what > Tapani said it was going to be, how about we just let the EC do its job? > > Paul > > Paul Rosenzweig > > [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 > > www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> > > My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ __ > > *From:*Mueller, Milton L [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > *Sent:* Sunday, August 28, 2016 9:17 PM > *To:* Paul Rosenzweig <[log in to unmask]> > *Cc:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: EC response to the By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal on > the election process > > Paul > > If there's no difference between the two then why did the person who > proposed the revision hold up the entire process with it? > > Your comparison only focuses on the NOTA paragraph and does not > include the entire letter. There were other changes. > > I think what people were objecting to was that the final 2 paragraphs > of the revised version eliminated all references to a compromise, and > no longer asked whether the appellant's felt that their appeal had > been satisfied. If those seemingly little changes are slipped in one > has to wonder what the person who proposed them was thinking. Whoever > proposed these changes did a great job of re-inflaming the mistrust > that fueled the appeal to begin with. > > > Milton L Mueller > > Professor, School of Public Policy > > Georgia Institute of Technology > > > On Aug 28, 2016, at 17:15, Paul Rosenzweig > <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > I’m glad everyone has so much time on the weekend to nit-pick the > process. Since we are asking for clarification, I’d like to ask > why anyone on the EC sees any difference between the first draft > language below and the proposed revision? In other words, since > they obviously mean the exact same thing, why is anyone in the EC > concerned about either draft which seem to me just clarifications > of each other? > > Paul > > FIRST DRAFT > > which means that with respect to the election for > > GNSO Council, those candidates who receive less votes than “None > of the > > Above” (NOTA) on the ballot shall not be elected to the GNSO > Council in > > this year’s election. Any candidate who ties with NOTA in number > of votes > > is elected. > > SECOND DRAFT > > In that > > meeting, we decided a solution that addressed the nota votes to > clarify for > > the community that candidates *with less votes than nota lose, > **and the* > > *s**ame number as nota is enough to get in. **This solution **is > to enable > > the current election to continue and address the concerns in the > Letter of > > Appeal.* > > Paul Rosenzweig > > [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > O: +1 (202) 547-0660 > > M: +1 (202) 329-9650 > > VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 > > www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> > > My PGP Key: http://redbranchconsulting.com/who-we-are/public-pgp-key/ > > *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On > Behalf Of *Tamir Israel > *Sent:* Sunday, August 28, 2016 1:41 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > *Subject:* Re: EC response to the By Laws Section 2.4.2.1 Appeal > on the election process > > Hi, > > Maybe someone from the exec committee can explain what (if > anything) was wrong with the text as here: > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-August/001133.html > > Thanks, > Tamir > > On 8/27/2016 6:42 PM, Mueller, Milton L 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.â€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] > <mailto:[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 > >  >