<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate



Very sensible. I'm angry at myself for not having thought of that.

Stéphane


Le 15/10/09 20:10, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette@xxxxxxx> a écrit :

> Are we even going to have any absentee Councilors?  Let's figure that out
> first.  Would rather not muck around with absentee voting provisions if we
> don't need to.  Not as if we don't have anything else to do.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 1:58 PM
> To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House
> determines a Candidate
> 
> I like that proposal, all apart from the absentees giving their votes to a
> "trusted third party". In that respect I would go with Alan's suggestion that
> only those present by counted.
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> 
> Le 15/10/09 17:51, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I think this is somewhat different.  I would like to propose a
>> solution that relies on our normal process of taking a vote anytime we
>> decide to make something secret.
>> 
>> So I would like to suggest that we take a vote on making the ballot a
>> secret ballot.  We can do this after having voted on the Council
>> Procedures and before stating the discussions on the election.    By
>> those, as of yet not approved procedures, this would require a
>> majority vote of each house of  those present.
>> 
>> In the meantime we will also ask staff to prepare paper ballots to be
>> used if secret balloting prevailed.   Different ballots (different
>> color paper) for each of the houses.
>> 
>> ballot for the first ballot:
>> 
>> Name of Candidate from CP House
>> Name of Candidate from NCP House
>> None of the above
>> 
>> 
>> ballot for the 2nd round*
>> 
>> Candidate who had greatest total percentage in the first round (don't
>> need name) None of the above
>> 
>> -
>> Those who are absent could send their votes to a trusted staff person
>> (or other trusted attendee - e.g. we could ask the Nomcom chair to act
>> in this capacity) who would transfer them to ballots and put them in
>> the ballot box with the others.
>> 
>> Would this work for people?
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> * in the odd even that we have an equal total percentage for each
>> candidate, we should postpone the second round until each candidate
>> has had a chance to discuss their positions further with the council
>> and then another round would be identical to the first round.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 16:46, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
>> 
>>> Given that we have always taken the position that a vote can be a
>>> roll call vote (as opposed to one by acclamation) on the request of
>>> one Councilor, my request for a secret ballot should be sufficient.
>>> 
>>> If it's not secret, I will not vote.  Period.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
>>> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:56 AM
>>> To: Council GNSO
>>> Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2
>>> Each House determines a Candidate
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Don't know.  Worth checking.  Though the system may have to be
>>> reworked for the bi-cameral nature of the vote.
>>> 
>>> We can certainly do paper ballots where one indicates not only their
>>> vote but their House.
>>> 
>>> Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot?
>>> 
>>> a.
>>> 
>>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Is there any reason why we couldn't hold a live email election?  I
>>>> don't know the limitations of the election software.
>>>> 
>>>> Chuck
>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette,
>>>>> Kristina
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:25 AM
>>>>> To: avri@xxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2
>>>>> Each House determines a Candidate
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> To my recollection, none of our previous elections while I have
>>>>> been on Council have been public.  I thought I'd missed the
>>>>> rationale for holding it publicly.  I've gone back and reviewed the
>>>>> messages I could find, but haven't seen one.  I had thought we
>>>>> would be voting privately in the week beforehand with the results
>>>>> announced at the meeting.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I object to our having to hold the election as a roll call vote.  I
>>>>> believe all Councilors should be permitted to cast votes privately.
>>>>> Casting open ballots will not be conducive to the improved working
>>>>> relationship that many of us have articulated a desire to develop.
>>>>> Moreover, given that I have found the environment at ICANN meetings
>>>>> generally (including public Council meetings) to be hostile, I
>>>>> believe casting those votes publicly is more likely than not to
>>>>> exacerbate that problem.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In sum, I want to vote privately as we've done in the past and have
>>>>> the results announced at the Council meeting.  Doing so has the
>>>>> extra benefit of having a definitive result at the Council meeting
>>>>> (assuming there is a clear winner); no delay from absentee
>>>>> balloting will occur.
>>>>> 
>>>>> K
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Sent: Thu Oct 15 03:23:01 2009
>>>>> Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2
>>>>> Each House determines a Candidate
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I wanted to ad a few more details to this part of the process.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 08:01, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> For this election, the voting will take place at the public
>>>>>> Council meeting in Seoul on Wednesday, 28 October 2009.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as
>>>>> non-voting chair
>>>>>> of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time as
>>>>>> a new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume
>>>>>> the chair responsibilities.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's
>>>>>> election, this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29
>>>>>> October. If no chair has been elected by the end of the Annual
>>>>>> meeting on
>>>>> 30 October,
>>>>>> the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as
>>>>> defined in
>>>>>> the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as determined in
>>>>> the Council
>>>>>> Procedures.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The Council shall inform the Board and the Community
>>>>> appropriately and
>>>>>> post the election results on the GNSO website within 2
>>>>> business days
>>>>>> following the election.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council
>>>>>> Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs
>>>>>> will serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election
>>>>>> can be held.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Since this election will be done in the meeting, I am planning to
>>>>> hold it as an open vote via a roll call.  This will be the second
>>>>> major item on the agenda, after a vote on any amendments to the
>>>>> proposed Operating Procedures the new Operating Procedures as
>>>>> possibly amended.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am hoping that all of the council members will be available for
>>>>> the vote, either in person or via remote communications, so that
>>>>> the election can be completed on the Wednesday, even if it needs to
>>>>> go to two rounds.  If we do not have everyone available for the
>>>>> call, then we will need to go a 24 hour absentee ballot on each
>>>>> round.  This means that the first round would not end until
>>>>> Thursday morning.  If necessary we could schedule a second round
>>>>> for Thursday, though we would then need to allow for voting at the
>>>>> Thursday meeting, which would be an exception to our normal
>>>>> practice.  In this case a second absentee ballot would end on
>>>>> Friday afternoon.  In any case, the goal is to enable the election
>>>>> of the new chair, if at all possible, by the end of the Seoul
>>>>> meeting.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As I said, I am hoping we can avoid needing to do an absentee
>>>>> ballot so I hope that any council member who cannot attend the
>>>>> meeting can participate remote in al least the first part of the
>>>>> Wednesday meeting.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Assuming we have a different candidate from each House, each
>>>>> council member polled would in turn be able to vote for:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Candidate chosen by Contracted Parties House (CP House or,
>>>>> Candidate chosen by Non Contracted Parties House (NCP House) or,
>>>>> None of the above
>>>>> 
>>>>> (In the case of a single candidate chosen by both Houses, the vote
>>>>> would resemble the second round procedure below)
>>>>> 
>>>>> The votes would be tabulated separately according to House, though
>>>>> the roll will be called alphabetically.
>>>>> 
>>>>> To  succeed a candidate needs 60% or each house.  This means  5 out
>>>>> of
>>>>> 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - If either the CP House candidate  or NCP House candidate get 60%
>>>>> of each House, he or she will have been elected and will take over
>>>>> as chair of the meeting at that point.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - If 'None of the above' gets 60% of each house, then the election
>>>>> is halted and rescheduled for a month later.  In this case the two
>>>>> vice-
>>>>> chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - If neither of the candidates (or "none of the above") gets the
>>>>> required 60% of each house, then a second round is called for.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Assuming every one is present on Wednesday morning, we can hold
>>>>> this second round vote immediately, otherwise we can hold it on Thursday.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The second roll call vote will be between:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The candidate who received the greatest combined percentage of the
>>>>> votes when the results of each house is summed to the other
>>>>> (Percentage from CP House + Percentage from NCP House) or, None of
>>>>> the above
>>>>> 
>>>>> If the candidate receives 60% votes of each House ( out of 7 votes
>>>>> for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP
>>>>> House) then that candidate has been elected and will take over as
>>>>> chair of the meeting at that point.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Otherwise, the election then the election is halted and rescheduled
>>>>> for a month later.  In this case the two vice-chairs will take over
>>>>> as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I believe this process follows from the rules set for the election
>>>>> of chairs in the new bi-cameral council.  I very much look forward
>>>>> to completing a successful election on Wednesday morning.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> a.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature