Re: [council] URGENT AOC RT Voting Clarifications

[Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I support Bill's interpretation -- for the open slot, I agree anyone who
has not yet been allocated to a slot should be eligible for selection.
Two rounds of voting, if necessary, sounds appropriate.

Thanks Bill for all your hard work here!
--Wendy


William Drake wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm afraid there are two outstanding issues about the election process, 
> sigh...
> 
> I.  Pool Subject to Voting
> 
> Since a) the council will be having an open meeting tomorrow in which we may 
> need to explain details of the process, b) I am told that some members of 
> other SGs gathered here in Nairobi have concerns about possible RT election 
> scenarios, and c) Tim has raised concerns about the process winnowing the 
> pool, I want to make sure everyone is on the same page on a key point 
> regarding the house election for the 5th and 6th RT pool slots.  Wolf raised 
> this with me the other day as well.
> 
> Based on discussions in the drafting team, some weeks ago Chuck notified SG 
> chairs that they could endorse up to two candidates for the "open" (not the 
> "unaffiliated") slot that is subject to election by the House  (actually I 
> think the initial bracketed language he used was two "alternates").   Nobody 
> ever objected so we let that stand as a limitation.   Alas, during the 
> frenzied Council call when we adopted the motion minutes after finding out 
> the revised dates for the process, we were focused on other issues and didn't 
> manage to discuss and draw it into the process document that was the subject 
> of the motion.  One could argue then that since the Council didn't formally 
> specify and approve this element, we can interpret it however we want without 
> doing any violence to the agreed process.
> 
> I can see two ways to interpret what we agreed:
> 
> 1.  SG endorsements of up to two candidate for the open elected slot simply 
> signals SG support for two out of the list of competitors.  So, for example 
> (the precise number is pending agreement within the ET) it appears that there 
> may be five candidates that are affiliated with the CSG.  The CSG endorses 
> (i.e. says "we favor") two, which the houses may wish to take into account in 
> voting, but the other three remain in the pool that will be voted on.  
> 
> 2.  Instead,  SG endorsements of up to two candidate for the open elected 
> slot means that they select only those two to stand for election, and the 
> others fall out and are not on the ballot.  
> 
> By my personal not-ratified-by-the-ET count, the twelve candidates should be 
> classified as follows:
> 
> 1 person who will be held out of the pool as his first choice is to be 
> considered for the Security and Stability RT
> 1 RgySG person
> 1 RgrSG person
> 5 CSG persons
> 2 NCSG persons
> 2 independent/unaffiliated persons
> 
> Without prejudging the decisions they will make, I would guess that the RgySG 
> and RgrSG would choose the people affiliated with them for the allocated 
> slots, which are not subject to the election.  NCSG has selected a person for 
> its allocated slot.  This would mean then that the potential competition for 
> the open elected slot is between 4 of the 5 CSG people (assuming they choose 
> one for the allocated slot) and one NCSG person.  (Of course the RgySG and 
> RgrSG could opt not to put the two into the allocated slots, in which case 
> you'd have to add one or two to the pool being voted on).
> 
> So: for that election, would the Council like to 
> 
> 1.  Have all five people competing, with CSG's endorsement of up to two 
> meaning only that they prefer them, or
> 2.  Interpret the endorsement as meaning that only those two can stand for 
> election, in which case the pool for the vote would be 2 CSG + 1 NCSG?
> 
> My preference would be that it be open, option 1.  Per Tim, this also gives 
> everyone a chance at being elected.  Moreover, I would add that if we don't 
> view SG endorsements of x as taking y out of the pool, there's another 
> option, namely that CSG could choose not to endorse any of them, so that it 
> doesn't have to make uncomfortable choices among colleagues and all get to 
> stand.
> 
> 
> II.  Voting Process
> 
> I raised this before with the DT and ET, didn't get a clear answer, and there 
> was no further pre-travel discussion.  If on the voting call no candidates 
> get majorities of both houses, we can either a) stop there and say nobody 
> wins that slot; b) do a second vote, in which hopefully enough people would 
> shift their positions to put someone over the top, and if the 2nd doesn't 
> work either, just agree nobody wins; or c) keep doing voting rounds until 
> someone wins.
> 
> Obviously, a) is the easiest, but b) or c) would be fairer to the candidates. 
>  I'd personally prefer b).
> 
> The same would presumably apply to the vote for the unaffiliated slot.
> 
> 
> It would be really great to clarify these two items before the open meeting.  
> Can we do this by consensus or do we need to have a quick motion?  Responses 
> would be very much appreciated.
> 
> Sorry...i can assure you nobody is more tired of this than I.
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
>