RE: [council] some issues related to the idea of all terms ending on 23 October.
Thanks for your thoughts Avri. I added some of my own below.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 11:27 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] some issues related to the idea of all
> terms ending on 23 October.
> Prompted by the document sent by the Policy staff (I know it
> is from Rob, but I am assuming that its contents have the
> imprimatur of the Policy Staff leadership) I started thinking
> about the side effects of ending all terms on the 23 of
> October. While I still maintain that it is not what the
> Bylaws mandate - always assuming that (for the purpose of
> this note) they still are as they were in the last draft - I
> could be proven wrong. So it seemed worth looking at the
> possible wrinkle we have been presented with.
> 1. So that I have said it and it is out of the way, under
> those circumstances, I would no longer be a member of the
> council and consequently no longer be council chair. While
> not having to travel to Seoul and donating one last week of
> my life to the GNSO council cause does have some side
> benefits, it also prevents me from doing what I think is my
> job which is to assist the council in a smooth transition and
> orderly hand over.
Chuck: I have been assuming that Avri would continue as chair until a
new chair is elected or at least two vice chairs are elected on 28
October in our public Council meeting and I haven't seen any reason to
do it differently. In fact it would leave some unfilled holes if we
ended her term earlier than that.
> However, I believe that no one is ever indispensable and
> certainly that applies to me. This could be dealt with by
> making sure that both houses had elected their vice chairs on
> the Saturday (my suggestion in any case), as the Bylaws
> provide for the vice-chairs to take the chair role in the
> absence of a chair.
Chuck: I can see the pluses of electing vice chairs on Saturday but I
can also see some complications. Would the elected vice chairs be
eligibe to be elected as chair? If the vice chairs were ineligible for
the chair position, that would reduce our options for chair candidates
and possibly make our decision for difficult? It seems to me that it
might be better if the Houses elected the vice chairs after the chair
election. They could still lay the groundwork for those elections on
Saturday but would defer final action until after the Council meeting on
Wednesday. If no chair is elected on Wednesday, then Avri could
continue as chair in a non-voting capacity until the vice chairs are
elected. Considering the time required to fulfill chair
responsibilities, it is not clear how many Council members will be able
to make that time commitment, so it doesn't seem wise to reduce our
options for candidates prematurely.
> Since the new council won't be seated until the 23rd they
> would not be able to elect a new chair until then.
Chuck: These issues reinforce my opinion that we do need to discuss them
in our upcoming Council meeting.
> possibility would be to schedule an actual voting meeting on
> the Saturday morning to either elect a temporary chair or the
> actual ongoing chair. Chuck, who I assume would be re-chosen
> as a Council member by his SG to finish out his current time,
> would be able to chair that meeting until the new chair was
> elected. Otherwise, the plan could proceed as I originally
> suggested with having the vote on the new chair as well as
> the vote on the new Council procedures as the first items of
> the Wednesday meeting. If every council member is in
> attendance either in person on remotely for at least this
> part of the meeting, the election can be completed quickly -
> otherwise it can be continued as I originally suggested with
> a 24 absentee ballet and completed in time for the Thursday meeting.
Chuck: This approach might work. I think it would address my concern
about electing vice chairs before the chair election. The Houses could
then meet after the special chair election to elect vice chairs. One of
the problems with this approach and that of electing the chair on
Wednesday is that we would not be able to have a normal nomination
period with the Council. Maybe that is unavoidable but we should think
it through carefully.
> There may also be other solutions to this consequent of
> terminating all terms on the 23rd but it appears that
> replacing me as chair is fairly easy to work around if I am
> not longer on the council in Seoul.
Chuck: Normally terms end at the end of the Council meeting during the
annual meeting. Clearly we have a unique situation this time around.
But it seems to me no-one's term needs to end until the new Council
meets on Wednesday in Seoul. Except for a special election in Seoul for
Chair on Saturday if we decided to go that route, there would be no
other votes taken by the Council so it really doesn't matter whether the
terms end on the 23rd or 28th, at least not as far as I can see.
> 2. It exacerbates the plan of how the alternate year seating
> plan is enacted. I think this is a bigger issue. If it is
> time zero for every council member, then we need a plan in
> each of the SGs to elect one for one year and another for two
> years (possibly complicated by the Contracted parties having
> an odd number of council members, so instead of 3 odd and 3
> even in the house we might have 2 odd and 4 even). Whereas
> if some people are appointed to continue with their last year
> while others are newly elected to full terms, it is most
> likely that a natural alternation will occur that may only
> need to be adjuste in a few cases in the non-contracted house.
Chuck: I agree with Avri here. Why overcomplicate the transition. Let
me use the RyC/RySG as an example. Edmon and I are in the first of our
second 2-year terms. As long as the RySG is in concurrence, why not
just allow Edmon and I to contunue our terms. In the case of Jordi,
whose 1st term expires in Seoul, the RySG could go ahead and fill that
seat just like we would have anyway. I understand that it is more
complicated for the CSG because they are going from 9 seats to 6. But
even in that case, I believe there will be Councilors who have unexpired
terms and with the CSG approval, those Councilors could simply finish
> 3. In terms of the continuing NCA, if indeed Terry's term is
> terminated, he needs to be reappointed for a one year term.
> Perhaps this has already been dealt with and we will find out
> when the Nomcom list is announced.
Chuck: Important point. This provides another example of why I have
felt for some time why either the Restructure DT or the Council need to
discuss these issues.
> 4. I know that as new NCA when I began, the first meeting I
> attended, since we do not have retreats as the Board does for
> new members, was an important learning time. Inserting a new
> NCA into the council and requiring them to be functional on
> their first day of ICANN participation (and I do not know
> whether we have one or two new NCA council members) is a
> daunting prospect. Various constituency members have talked
> about the need for them to go to the meeting in Seoul to
> provide assistance for new council members, and these are
> people who have been active in the constituencies. Imagine
> what it is like for a new NCA for whom it may be their first
> ICANN meeting. while I now feel that I understand every nook
> and cranny of ICANN's gothic architecture, it can be
> frightening at first glance.
> There may be other issues, but those are the first that occur to me.