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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am open to a quick call.  I also have no problem involving the full Council 
but that will make it harder to schedule.  
So I wonder whether a subgroup of interested parties might be a better way to 
go. I think that the subgroup would need to include at least one representative 
from each SG and I do not think that it necessarily needs to be just Councilors.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:10 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Rosette, Kristina; stephvg2@xxxxxxxxx
> Cc: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx; avri@xxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: 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.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Adrian Kinderis
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 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 Seat Transition
> 
> 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.
> 
> Chuck 
> 
> > -----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; 
> > council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > Chuck,
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Stephane
> > 
> > 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
> > >>>
> > >>
> > 
> > 
>