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

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

Strictly from a personal point of view: 
  • I favor an open ballot for accountability and transparency reasons, but I also respect the concerns of individual Councilors.
  • If just one Councilor requests a secret ballot, I then am fine with a secret ballot with at least one caveat that the votes of each SG's reps be communicated to the SG.
  • If am fine with Avri's suggestion to poll the Council regarding whether to hold a secret or open ballot.
I have raised this issue on the RySG list and am waiting their direction.  In the end I will respond to the poll in accordance with that direction and not my personal views.
 
Chuck

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:18 AM
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate

Hi

On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot?
I think that at a time when there seems to be a lot of mistrust amongst the ICANN community and. more importantly, when there are many new entrants/participants and Councillors, it's important to have complete transparency in the GNSO processes. As such, I don't support the idea of a secret ballot in this case.
Cheers
Mary
 
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584