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

On Oct 17, 2009, at 5:11 AM, Cyril Chua wrote:

I agree with Mary that there is a lot of mistrust amongst the ICANN stakeholder groups and it would be easier to built trust if everyone is given the space to cast a secret ballot.

Actually, what she said (below) was the opposite, that as there is mistrust in the ICANN community generally, transparency and accountability are important, and hence there should not be a secret ballot.

Anyway, there's obviously a variety of views that won't be squared through further debate, so let's just vote and move on. As long as there is no gag order and people's right to publicly declare their stance per usual is not violated, those of us who are compelled to abide by transparency will be able to participate regardless and to avail ourselves of that right at the public meeting.

Best,

Bill

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.