RE: [council] GNSO Vote for ICANN Board seat # 14

[Marc Schneiders <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I guess all council members are happy with Michael Palage... That is
not a bad thing in itself, I think.

Marc

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, at 19:45 [=GMT+0200], Lucy.Nichols@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

> As all interested candidates and their supporters are (or should be) aware of 
> the timelines and procedure, I don't believe the nomination process should be 
> reopened except for exceptional circumstances. Deciding at the last moment to 
> solicit support to run is not, in my opinion, an "exceptional" circumstance.
>
> Regards,
>
> Lucy Nichols
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On 
> Behalf Of ext Maureen Cubberley
> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:09 AM
> To: Bruce Tonkin; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [council] GNSO Vote for ICANN Board seat # 14
>
>
> 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 short notice.
>
> 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.
>
> Best regards,
> Maureen
>
> Maureen Cubberley
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bruce Tonkin <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:49 PM
> Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Vote for ICANN Board seat # 14
>
> Hello Alick,
>
> >
> > 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:
> http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X
>
> "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
> a decision.
>
>
> > 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
> candidates.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>