Stéphane, I am not opposed to involving the full Council; I was simply trying to be realistic from a scheduling point of view. If we can readily find a time that the full Council can meet, great, but that is not an easy task. Whether that happens or not, I provide a suggested voluntary approach that we could follow below. I agree that we cannot delay this. In that regard, I think there is a way we may be able to address yours and Adrian's concerns about the order of the elections without changing the plan that is on the table. Here are the three applicable sections of the plan: "3. Each House will elect a vice chair for the new bicameral Council: a. Nominations must be completed not later than 23 October 2009. b. Elections must be completed not later than Tuesday, 27 October 2009. c. Election requires a simple majority vote. 6. The nomination procedure for GNSO Council Chair will be as follows: a. The GNSO Secretariat will call for nominations from existing Councilors for GNSO Council Chair on 7 October 2009. b. The nomination period will end on 21 October 2009. c. Nominees shall submit a candidacy statement in writing to the Council not later than 23 October 2009. 9. As much in advance of the meeting as possible, the agenda for the 28 October 2009 Council meeting will be prepared by the existing Council under the leadership of Avri Doria as chair and shall include but not be limited to the following two action items: 1) Approval of the Council Operations Procedures necessary for seating the bicameral Council; 2) Election of chair." My idea definitely requires the cooperation of the two Houses and their respective SGs. Here it is: 1. Each SG should identify a lead spokesperson who would be the primary representatives of their interests in the process and would also serve as facilitators to keep the process moving; this would not have to exclude other participants and/or alternates if desired. Either one spokesperson should be identified as the House spokesperson or the two spokespersons should serve as co-spokespersons for the House, however the House decides. The spokespersons need not be Councilors. (The sooner this happens the sooner step 2 can begin.) 2. The SGs in each House should identify possible chair candidates and communicate them to the other SG in the House. Chair candidates may be any Councilors including NCAs and, if possible, NCAs could be involved in the process. During this process, collaboration among the two SGs should be encouraged as well as collaboration with the SGs in the other House if desired. (This could literally start happening now.) 3. The two SGs in each House should attempt to reach agreement regarding support for one nominee along with involvement of the NCAs as possible. If it is not possible to reach agreement, they could collaborate with the SGs in the other House to possibly find out if any of the candidates have greater chances of support from the other House. 4. As soon as a House identifies its nominee, it should be communicated to the other House and a Candidate Statement should be requested. If it is not possible to reach agreement on one nominee, then the House should consider whether the nominee from the other House may be acceptable; if so, then that candidate would be the proposed chair. If not, then the two Houses should consider whether there is anyway to break the impasse and obtain 60% approval from each House (5 votes of 7 for the Contracted Parties House and 8 out of 13 for the Non-contracted Parties House) for any candidate; if not, then the procedures for continuing the process should be initiated as defined in the Council Operating Procedures and the vice chairs will need to be elected before the chair per the Council Operating Procedures. (To comply with the plan above, this step should be completed as soon as possible but probably no later than 21 October, the latter which would allow two days for vice chair nominations.) 5. The vice chair nomination process should begin immediately after step 4. 6. If a proposed chair candidate is identified, the candidate's statement should be publicly posted NLT 23 October 2009. 7. If a proposed chair candidate is identified, the SGs in each House along with the House NCA if known should ratify the identification of the chair candidate for Council approval on 28 October. (Ideally, this should happen before step 5 but probably no later than 23 October.) 8. House elections of vice chairs would occur either on Saturday morning in Seoul (Oct. 24) or on Constituency Day in Seoul (27 Oct.). 8. If a proposed chair was identified in step 4 and ratified in step 7, the new bicameral Council would vote to approve the chair on 28 October; if not, the vice chairs would co-chair the Council as defined in the Council Operating Procedures. I believe all of the above would comply with the plan above, so no changes to the plan would be needed. I believe the worst case scenario is if the above voluntary approach does not work, in which case we are back to where we now. I think Adrian was the one who suggested that we extend Avri's term until such time as a chair is elected; I personally would not have a problem with that but it violates two requirements: 1) NCA term limits; 2) the chair must be a Councilor. Sorry for the lengthy email. Hope it makes sense. The RySG has already started step 2 above because it will need to happen whatever plan we choose. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 2:33 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck; Adrian Kinderis; Rosette, Kristina; > stephvg2@xxxxxxxxx > Cc: avri@xxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [council] RE: Amended Motion to Approve Plan for > Bicameral Council Seat Transition > > Chuck, Adrian, > > Although a call might be a good idea, I have to admit I am > uncomfortable at the thought of not involving the full > Council in this discussion. > > Furthermore, although a call may help, we need to be careful > not to turn a call into a way to delay on this. We need to > make a decision on this very soon. If we are to change the > proposed procedure for chair and VC elections, which is what > was proposed by Adrian and supported by (at least) myself and > Kristina, then this really needs to be done right away. > > I do not see how we can avoid discussing this during > tomorrow's Council call. > > Stéphane > > > Le 23/09/09 17:01, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > > > I am open to a quick call. I also have no problem > involving the full > > Council but that will make it harder to schedule. > > So I wonder whether a subgroup of interested parties might > be a better > > way to go. I think that the subgroup would need to include at least > > one representative from each SG and I do not think that it > necessarily > > needs to be just Councilors. > > > > Chuck > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:10 PM > >> To: Gomes, Chuck; Rosette, Kristina; stephvg2@xxxxxxxxx > >> Cc: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; avri@xxxxxxx; > >> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> Subject: RE: [council] RE: Amended Motion to Approve Plan for > >> Bicameral Council Seat Transition > >> > >> Is it possible to schedule a quick call to discuss this? > >> Perhaps this can be done outside of the GNSO Council meeting. > >> > >> We will probably make more progress in a shorter time that way. > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Adrian Kinderis > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > >> Sent: Tuesday, 22 September 2009 11:55 PM > >> To: Rosette, Kristina; stephvg2@xxxxxxxxx; Adrian Kinderis > >> Cc: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; avri@xxxxxxx; > >> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> Subject: RE: [council] RE: Amended Motion to Approve Plan for > >> Bicameral Council Seat Transition > >> > >> Let's talk about how to focus on the chair first and still > deal with > >> the complexities associated with the one-time transition. I don't > >> think there is anything to prevent us from working together within > >> Houses and in the Council as a whole to come up with > recommendations > >> for a chair in advance that would simply need to be > confirmed in an > >> official election on 28 October. If we could get that done before > >> nominations are made in the Houses for vice chairs, that > might work a > >> lot better. > >> > >> This could possibly happen within the currently proposed > plan but we > >> should think about whether it would be better to make some > amendments > >> to the plan. > >> > >> I am open and willing to work on this. > >> > >> Chuck > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 9:28 AM > >>> To: stephvg2@xxxxxxxxx; adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; avri@xxxxxxx; > >>> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Amended Motion to Approve Plan for > >>> Bicameral Council Seat Transition > >>> > >>> Agree with Adrian and Stephane. > >>> > >>> > >>> Kristina Rosette > >>> Covington & Burling LLP > >>> 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. > >>> Washington, DC 20004-2401 > >>> voice: 202-662-5173 > >>> direct fax: 202-778-5173 > >>> main fax: 202-662-6291 > >>> e-mail: krosette@xxxxxxx > >>> > >>> This message is from a law firm and may contain > information that is > >>> confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended > >>> recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply > >> e-mail that > >>> this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and > >> delete this > >>> e-mail from your system. > >>> Thank you for your cooperation. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------- > >>> Sent from my Wireless Handheld > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> To: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Cc: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Stéphane Van Gelder > >>> <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; Avri Doria > <avri@xxxxxxx>; Council > >>> GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Sent: Tue Sep 22 05:55:57 2009 > >>> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Amended Motion to Approve Plan for > >>> Bicameral Council Seat Transition > >>> > >>> > >>> Chuck, > >>> > >>> I agree with Adrian that we seem to be going about this backwards. > >>> This plan gives the VC elections the priority. Shouldn't we > >> instead be > >>> focussing first on the chair? Doing so means that we have a much > >>> better chance, as a Council, of finding enough common ground on a > >>> Chair to actually elect one. If we instead take care of the chair > >>> elections after the VCs, then there is less incentive to > >> complete the > >>> chair elections as the VCs can simply act as stand-ins. > >> Full time if > >>> required. Electing VCs is bound to be simpler anyway, as > >> they are not > >>> Council-wide but house specific. And we can assume some degree of > >>> entente cordiale within each house, can we not? I always like to > >>> tackle the difficult stuff first and that's another reason > >> why I would > >>> want us to consider doing the chair election first. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> Stephane > >>> > >>> Envoyé de mon iPhone > >>> > >>> Le 22 sept. 2009 à 09:21, Adrian Kinderis > >> <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> a écrit : > >>> > >>>> Is it too simplistic to just ask Avri to fill that > >> leadership void, > >>>> given the exceptional circumstances, until a Chair is > >>> elected AND THEN > >>>> vice chairs are elected. > >>>> > >>>> Personally, I may change my vote for Vice Chair depending > >> on who is > >>>> elected into the Chair position. This is my concern which I > >>> do not see > >>>> is alleviated in your proposed process (forgive me if it > >>> is). I could > >>>> even be that I may rescind my nomination for a position etc... > >>>> > >>>> I completely understand what your plan hopes to do. I just > >>> think it is > >>>> backwards. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Adrian Kinderis > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner- > >>>> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck > >>>> Sent: Tuesday, 22 September 2009 7:57 AM > >>>> To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Avri Doria; Council GNSO > >>>> Subject: RE: [council] RE: Amended Motion to Approve Plan for > >>>> Bicameral Council Seat Transition > >>>> > >>>> Stéphane/Adrian, > >>>> > >>>> I agree with your concerns and in fact raised them in > >> conversations > >>>> that Avri and Staff and I had several weeks ago, but we > >> are dealing > >>>> with some very unique circumstances in this one time > >> transition: 1) > >>>> The new Council has to elect the chair and it will not be > >>> seated until > >>>> 28 October; 2) there is the possibility that the chair > >>> election may be > >>>> delayed 24 hours after 28 October if there are any absentee > >>> votes or > >>>> several weeks or months if no candidate receives enough > >>> votes; 3) the > >>>> approved Bylaws provide for the vice chairs to serve as Council > >>>> co-chairs until a Chair is elected. Therefore, if we try > >>> to elect the > >>>> chair before the vice chairs and fail, we have a > >> leadership vacuum. > >>>> > >>>> Item 6 of the plan we are voting on this coming Thursday > >>> calls for the > >>>> following with regard to chair elections: > >>>> a. The GNSO Secretariat will call for nominations from existing > >>>> Councilors for GNSO Council Chair on 7 October 2009. > >>>> b. The nomination period will end on 21 October 2009. > >>>> c. Nominees shall submit a candidacy statement in writing to the > >>>> Council not later than 23 October 2009. > >>>> > >>>> Item 3 of the plan calls for the following with regard to > >> vice chair > >>>> elections: > >>>> a. Nominations must be completed not later than 23 October 2009. > >>>> b. Elections must be completed not later than Tuesday, > 27 October > >>>> 2009. > >>>> c. Election requires a simple majority vote. > >>>> > >>>> Some of the our concerns may be at least partially > >> mitigated by the > >>>> following: 1) Within the time constraints copied above, > >> each House > >>>> could agree on what candidate to nominate for chair prior > >>> to deciding > >>>> on what candidate to nominate for vice chair; 2) if so > >> desired, the > >>>> candidate nominated for chair could be included in the > >>> nominations for > >>>> vice chair in case that candidate is not elected as > chair; 3) the > >>>> candidate who receives at least a simple majority of > >> votes for vice > >>>> chair would be elected as vice chair and would serve in > >>> that capacity > >>>> unless later elected as chair, in which case a new election > >>> for vice > >>>> chair would be held. > >>>> > >>>> I am sure you can think of variations that might be better. > >>> One thing > >>>> for sure, it would be smart for each House to be working on > >>> this now. > >>>> > >>>> Chuck > >>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>>>> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > >> Stéphane Van Ge > >>>>> lder > >>>>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 5:32 AM > >>>>> To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO > >>>>> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Amended Motion to Approve Plan for > >>>>> Bicameral Council Seat Transition > >>>>> > >>>>> 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