RE: [council] RE: Amended Motion to Approve Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition
Is it possible to schedule a quick call to discuss this? Perhaps this can be
done outside of the GNSO Council meeting.
We will probably make more progress in a shorter time that way.
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, 22 September 2009 11:55 PM
To: Rosette, Kristina; stephvg2@xxxxxxxxx; Adrian Kinderis
Cc: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; avri@xxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Amended Motion to Approve Plan for Bicameral Council
Let's talk about how to focus on the chair first and still deal with the
complexities associated with the one-time transition. I don't think there is
anything to prevent us from working together within Houses and in the Council
as a whole to come up with recommendations for a chair in advance that would
simply need to be confirmed in an official election on 28 October. If we could
get that done before nominations are made in the Houses for vice chairs, that
might work a lot better.
This could possibly happen within the currently proposed plan but we should
think about whether it would be better to make some amendments to the plan.
I am open and willing to work on this.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 9:28 AM
> To: stephvg2@xxxxxxxxx; adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck; stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; avri@xxxxxxx;
> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Amended Motion to Approve Plan for
> Bicameral Council Seat Transition
> Agree with Adrian and Stephane.
> Kristina Rosette
> Covington & Burling LLP
> 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
> Washington, DC 20004-2401
> voice: 202-662-5173
> direct fax: 202-778-5173
> main fax: 202-662-6291
> e-mail: krosette@xxxxxxx
> This message is from a law firm and may contain information
> that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender
> by reply e-mail that this message has been inadvertently
> transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system.
> Thank you for your cooperation.
> Sent from my Wireless Handheld
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Stéphane Van Gelder
> <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>; Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>;
> Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tue Sep 22 05:55:57 2009
> Subject: Re: [council] RE: Amended Motion to Approve Plan for
> Bicameral Council Seat Transition
> 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.
> > Thanks.
> > 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
> > Stéphane/Adrian,
> > 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.
> > Chuck
> >> -----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.
> >> Stéphane
> >> 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
> >> 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