Adrian's suggestion makes a lot of sense. Let me push it a little further and add one of my own... Electing both the chair and vice-chairs (in that order), on the same day would probably make the whole process run more smoothly. And electing the chair before the vice-chairs reduces the likelihood of the Council failing to complete that election. Stéphane Le 20/09/09 14:33, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit : > > Hi Adrain, > > I do not think that being elected a Vice-chair would preclude someone > from running for chair, but it would mean that if they succeeded, a > new vice-chair would need to be elected. > > I think the reason for suggesting that the vice-chairs be elected up > front is to make sure that they are in place should the council fail > to elect a chair during the meeting. > > I think, in general, when not trying to effect this transition, the > vice-chair elections would happen after the chair election as has been > the case up until now. I.e. this is a one time thing. > > a. > > > On 20 Sep 2009, at 07:51, Adrian Kinderis wrote: > >> Chuck et al, >> >> A few quick questions and potentially some follow up on this (and >> sorry if I am a little behind on this). >> >> Is there rationale for electing Vice-Chairs prior to the Chair? >> >> Would the election of a Vice-Chair, assuming the election is held >> before the election for Chair, exclude a candidate from running for >> Chair? >> >> Depending on your answers I may propose that the elections be held >> in reverse as this seems, on the surface at least, to be a little >> unworkable and potentially problematic. I will await your response >> prior to commenting further. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Adrian Kinderis >> >> >> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner- >> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck >> Sent: Friday, 18 September 2009 5:01 AM >> To: Council GNSO >> Subject: [council] Amended Motion to Approve Plan for Bicameral >> Council Seat Transition >> Importance: High >> >> Attached you will find a clean and a redline version of a revised >> motion to approve the Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition >> (i.e., an implementation plan for the new bicameral Council). Note >> that I submitted the original motion two days ago but Avri, Staff >> and I discovered some changes that were needed after consultation >> with the GC office and in our own discussions. The clean version is >> also posted on the wiki at >> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?24_sept_motions >> . >> >> This motion is on our agenda for our meeting next week on 24 >> September 2009 so please forward it to your respective groups for >> review and comment as soon as possible for their review and comment. >> >> In the redline version you will see that quite a few changes were >> made, although the overall essence of the plan is very similar to >> what it was; quite a few needed details were added. >> >> The clean version is probably the easiest to use but those of you >> who already reviewed the original motion may find it helpful to >> refer to the redline version so that you can easily see the changes >> that were made. Also, the redline version contains comments that >> were exchanged by Avri, ICANN Staff and I in the process; they >> hopefully will provide the rationale for the amendments made. If >> anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask. >> >> As before, amendment suggestions are welcome. >> >> Chuck Gomes >
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature