Re: [council] GNSO Vote for ICANN Board seat # 14
- To: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Vote for ICANN Board seat # 14
- From: "Maureen Cubberley" <maureen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:08:48 -0500
- Cc: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Organization: ASM Consultants
- References: <57AD40AED823A7439D25CD09604BFB54F9AC32@balius.mit>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bruce, Alick and Fellow Councillors,
I am one of several GNSO Councillors who was contacted by Tim Ruiz ( of
GoDaddy) last Friday - in my case, just an hour before the nomination period
closed. Tim asked if I would nominate him for Board Seat #14. Because his
telephone call to me occurred so close to the close of nominations, and I was
travelling at the time, there was not time to determine whether or not a second
nomination would be a good idea, or even time to consider whether Tim would be
a suitable candidate. I advised him I would not be able to nominate him on such
In the meantime, there has been some further correspondence. I have been
contacted again by Tim, and he has contacted Bruce as to the process for
extending nominations. Bruce has advised me that;
"In terms of process, the nomination period is closed, but the Council
could decide by vote to re-open the nomination period if there were
suitable candidates. A member of Council would need to propose a
motion, and preferably have obtained some support from other councillors
prior to the meeting."
I wish to emphasize that it is not my purpose or intention in sending you this
email to set up a challenge to Michael Palage's candidacy. I am, rather,
responding in my capacity as a GNSO Councillor to a request from a member of
the Registrar constituency, and attempting to determine whether there is
interest amongst the Council members to entertain the possibility of
considering another candidate. If there is, perhaps we could have this
discussion during today's teleconference, and decide whether or not we want to
take the necessary steps to re-open the nomination period.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:49 PM
Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Vote for ICANN Board seat # 14
> In most other organisations, when there is only a single
> candidate, when nominations close the single candidate is
> declared elected unopposed and there is no vote.
That is not the case for the ICANN Board elections.
From the bylaws, Article X, section 3, paragraph 6:
"The GNSO Council shall make selections to fill Seats 13 and 14 on the
ICANN Board by written ballot or by action at a meeting; any such
selection must have affirmative votes comprising a majority of the votes
of all the members of the GNSO Council. Notification of the GNSO
Council's selections shall be given by the GNSO Chair in writing to the
ICANN Secretary, consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) and 12(1)."
The appointment is for three years.
Council members should ensure that the candidate meets the selection
criteria for a director, and has support from the GNSO community.
In terms of process, we can either use an email vote (to be ratified by
a subsequent Council meeting) or we simply hold a vote during a Council
meeting. While we could hold a vote in the meeting on 17 March, some
Council members may feel they need time to interview the candidate and
discuss the candidate with members of the GNSO community prior to making
> What happens if the sole candidate does not get a majority of
> the votes?
There are two options:
(1) we re-open the nomination period, and make an effort to seek
candidates for the Board.
(2) the sole candidate addresses any concerns that some Council members
may have had, and the vote is re-held.
The situation is really no different to that if you have only one
current candidate for a job. If that candidate does not pass a job
interview, reference check etc, an organisation would seek more