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

[Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
I think a call is a good idea, I am interested in participating.
Regards
Olga

2009/9/23 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
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>


-- 
Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing.
www.south-ssig.com.ar