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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>