RE: [council] RE: Amended Motion to Approve Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition
One more thought Stephane. I never intended that this would not be discussed in tomorrow's meeting. But the more we can hash it out in advance, the better chances it will proceed efficiently tomorrow. Chuck > -----Original Message----- > From: Stéphane Van Gelder [mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 2:33 PM > To: Gomes, Chuck; Adrian Kinderis; Rosette, Kristina; > stephvg2@xxxxxxxxx > Cc: avri@xxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [council] RE: Amended Motion to Approve Plan for > Bicameral Council Seat Transition > > Chuck, Adrian, > > Although a call might be a good idea, I have to admit I am > uncomfortable at the thought of not involving the full > Council in this discussion. > > Furthermore, although a call may help, we need to be careful > not to turn a call into a way to delay on this. We need to > make a decision on this very soon. If we are to change the > proposed procedure for chair and VC elections, which is what > was proposed by Adrian and supported by (at least) myself and > Kristina, then this really needs to be done right away. > > I do not see how we can avoid discussing this during > tomorrow's Council call. > > Stéphane > > > Le 23/09/09 17:01, « Gomes, Chuck » <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > > > 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 > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|