RE: [council] RE: Amended Motion to Approve Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition
Is it too simplistic to just ask Avri to fill that leadership void, given the
exceptional circumstances, until a Chair is elected AND THEN vice chairs are
Personally, I may change my vote for Vice Chair depending on who is elected
into the Chair position. This is my concern which I do not see is alleviated in
your proposed process (forgive me if it is). I could even be that I may rescind
my nomination for a position etc...
I completely understand what your plan hopes to do. I just think it is
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, 22 September 2009 7:57 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder; Avri Doria; Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Amended Motion to Approve Plan for Bicameral Council
I agree with your concerns and in fact raised them in conversations that Avri
and Staff and I had several weeks ago, but we are dealing with some very unique
circumstances in this one time transition: 1) The new Council has to elect the
chair and it will not be seated until 28 October; 2) there is the possibility
that the chair election may be delayed 24 hours after 28 October if there are
any absentee votes or several weeks or months if no candidate receives enough
votes; 3) the approved Bylaws provide for the vice chairs to serve as Council
co-chairs until a Chair is elected. Therefore, if we try to elect the chair
before the vice chairs and fail, we have a leadership vacuum.
Item 6 of the plan we are voting on this coming Thursday calls for the
following with regard to chair elections:
a. The GNSO Secretariat will call for nominations from existing Councilors for
GNSO Council Chair on 7 October 2009.
b. The nomination period will end on 21 October 2009.
c. Nominees shall submit a candidacy statement in writing to the Council not
later than 23 October 2009.
Item 3 of the plan calls for the following with regard to vice chair elections:
a. Nominations must be completed not later than 23 October 2009.
b. Elections must be completed not later than Tuesday, 27 October 2009.
c. Election requires a simple majority vote.
Some of the our concerns may be at least partially mitigated by the following:
1) Within the time constraints copied above, each House could agree on what
candidate to nominate for chair prior to deciding on what candidate to nominate
for vice chair; 2) if so desired, the candidate nominated for chair could be
included in the nominations for vice chair in case that candidate is not
elected as chair; 3) the candidate who receives at least a simple majority of
votes for vice chair would be elected as vice chair and would serve in that
capacity unless later elected as chair, in which case a new election for vice
chair would be held.
I am sure you can think of variations that might be better. One thing for
sure, it would be smart for each House to be working on this now.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 5:32 AM
> To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Amended Motion to Approve Plan for
> Bicameral Council Seat Transition
> Adrian's suggestion makes a lot of sense.
> Let me push it a little further and add one of my own...
> Electing both the chair and vice-chairs (in that order), on
> the same day would probably make the whole process run more
> smoothly. And electing the chair before the vice-chairs
> reduces the likelihood of the Council failing to complete
> that election.
> Le 20/09/09 14:33, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit :
> > 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
> >> 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