ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] RE: Amended Motion to Approve Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition
  • From: Stephvg2 <stephvg2@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:55:57 +0200
  • Cc: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>, Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:references:message-id:from:to :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer :mime-version:subject:date:cc; bh=RCasPYysI78NXHdSmreEIhKDV1t+Nsw8iLgqNf+ys/Y=; b=nWb+ODhAy184MQs4YRdul3sS5acsQCS/rw+6HZaklOns4Dva28aWMK7sPjuLl74CHg 8AeKWGjPgqzMjtyRRPLI5TJp4ID7plGVP4inA8TH4rxJrnq0feGVWVHdb8/V5wyi/PQm Mw7v+tSVHJsPp7lPdfpWr1oS9qTBc+O3xCPCQ=
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=references:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:mime-version:subject:date:cc; b=kcFFQXXco/lnKQr6J/Y+TGHlJ+JHbkzdCuG59MmhhYem2CSCZk7V5WIR4a0Xf3i7XD yiGTctOH0D0YUl/UPVKqA1AdKELZcYk0hU70JK9CZlS1JwkyQ7M4AHSG1/HICq3BUlex EArnw16UMSE9zCcWf5akL8mmQ8jGuN7AXw/rQ=
  • In-reply-to: <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB3E0BD24208@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <AC83BAF3-40C5-4A8A-B980-838AFEA7088D@psg.com> <C6DD14CD.27145%stephane.vangelder@indom.com> <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0702D3F89F@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <8CEF048B9EC83748B1517DC64EA130FB3E0BD24208@off-win2003-01.ausregistrygroup.local>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


I agree with Adrian that we seem to be going about this backwards. This plan gives the VC elections the priority. Shouldn't we instead be focussing first on the chair? Doing so means that we have a much better chance, as a Council, of finding enough common ground on a Chair to actually elect one. If we instead take care of the chair elections after the VCs, then there is less incentive to complete the chair elections as the VCs can simply act as stand-ins. Full time if required. Electing VCs is bound to be simpler anyway, as they are not Council-wide but house specific. And we can assume some degree of entente cordiale within each house, can we not? I always like to tackle the difficult stuff first and that's another reason why I would want us to consider doing the chair election first.



Envoyé de mon iPhone

Le 22 sept. 2009 à 09:21, Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

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 elected.

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 backwards.


Adrian Kinderis

-----Original Message-----
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 Seat Transition


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 Ge lder
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.


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

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

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

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