Re: [council] RE: Amended Motion to Approve Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Adrain,

I do not think that being elected a Vice-chair would preclude someone  
from running for chair, but it would mean that if they succeeded, a   
new vice-chair would need to be elected.
I think the reason for suggesting that the vice-chairs be elected up  
front is to make sure that they are in place should the council fail  
to elect a chair during the meeting.
I think, in general, when not trying to effect this transition, the  
vice-chair elections would happen after the chair election as has been  
the case up until now. I.e. this is a one time thing.
a.


On 20 Sep 2009, at 07:51, Adrian Kinderis wrote:

> Chuck et al,
>
> A few quick questions and potentially some follow up on this (and  
> sorry if I am a little behind on this).
> Is there rationale for electing Vice-Chairs prior to the Chair?
>
> Would the election of a Vice-Chair, assuming the election is held  
> before the election for Chair, exclude a candidate from running for  
> Chair?
> Depending on your answers I may propose that the elections be held  
> in reverse as this seems, on the surface at least, to be a little  
> unworkable and potentially problematic. I will await your response  
> prior to commenting further.
> Thanks.
>
> Adrian Kinderis
>
>
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner- 
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Friday, 18 September 2009 5:01 AM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] Amended Motion to Approve Plan for Bicameral  
> Council Seat Transition
> Importance: High
>
> Attached you will find a clean and a redline version of a revised  
> motion to approve the Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition  
> (i.e., an implementation plan for the new bicameral Council).  Note  
> that I submitted the original motion two days ago but Avri, Staff  
> and I discovered some changes that were needed after consultation  
> with the GC office and in our own discussions.  The clean version is  
> also posted on the wiki at https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?24_sept_motions 
> .
> This motion is on our agenda for our meeting next week on 24  
> September 2009 so please forward it to your respective groups for  
> review and comment as soon as possible for their review and comment.
> In the redline version you will see that quite a few changes were  
> made, although the overall essence of the plan is very similar to  
> what it was; quite a few needed details were added.
> The clean version is probably the easiest to use but those of you  
> who already reviewed the original motion may find it helpful to  
> refer to the redline version so that you can easily see the changes  
> that were made.  Also, the redline version contains comments that  
> were exchanged by Avri, ICANN Staff and I in the process; they  
> hopefully will provide the rationale for the amendments made.  If  
> anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask.
> As before, amendment suggestions are welcome.
>
> Chuck Gomes