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

[Adrian Kinderis <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Please note a few points;

1. I never suggested not involving the entire Council. That was never my 
intention. I merely figured it would be a long discussion and probably take up 
too much Council Meeting time (as important as it is!).
2. I will not be on the Council Call later today

Thanks.

Adrian Kinderis


-----Original Message-----
From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, 24 September 2009 8:03 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder; 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

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
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>