ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] RE: Amended Motion to Approve Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition
  • From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 08:33:58 -0400
  • In-reply-to: <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB3E0BAA5EBE@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0702D3F736@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB3E0BAA5EBE@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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.


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.


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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>