Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
I like that proposal, all apart from the absentees giving their votes to a "trusted third party". In that respect I would go with Alan's suggestion that only those present by counted. Stéphane Le 15/10/09 17:51, « Avri Doria » <avri@xxxxxxx> a écrit : > > Hi, > > I think this is somewhat different. I would like to propose a > solution that relies on our normal process of taking a vote anytime we > decide to make something secret. > > So I would like to suggest that we take a vote on making the ballot a > secret ballot. We can do this after having voted on the Council > Procedures and before stating the discussions on the election. By > those, as of yet not approved procedures, this would require a > majority vote of each house of those present. > > In the meantime we will also ask staff to prepare paper ballots to be > used if secret balloting prevailed. Different ballots (different > color paper) for each of the houses. > > ballot for the first ballot: > > Name of Candidate from CP House > Name of Candidate from NCP House > None of the above > > > ballot for the 2nd round* > > Candidate who had greatest total percentage in the first round (don't > need name) > None of the above > > - > Those who are absent could send their votes to a trusted staff person > (or other trusted attendee - e.g. we could ask the Nomcom chair to act > in this capacity) who would transfer them to ballots and put them in > the ballot box with the others. > > Would this work for people? > > a. > > * in the odd even that we have an equal total percentage for each > candidate, we should postpone the second round until each candidate > has had a chance to discuss their positions further with the council > and then another round would be identical to the first round. > > > > On 15 Oct 2009, at 16:46, Rosette, Kristina wrote: > >> Given that we have always taken the position that a vote can be a >> roll call vote (as opposed to one by acclamation) on the request of >> one Councilor, my request for a secret ballot should be sufficient. >> >> If it's not secret, I will not vote. Period. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner- >> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:56 AM >> To: Council GNSO >> Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 >> Each House determines a Candidate >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Don't know. Worth checking. Though the system may have to be >> reworked for the bi-cameral nature of the vote. >> >> We can certainly do paper ballots where one indicates not only their >> vote but their House. >> >> Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot? >> >> a. >> >> On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote: >> >>> Is there any reason why we couldn't hold a live email election? I >>> don't know the limitations of the election software. >>> >>> Chuck >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:25 AM >>>> To: avri@xxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 >>>> Each House determines a Candidate >>>> >>>> >>>> To my recollection, none of our previous elections while I have been >>>> on Council have been public. I thought I'd missed the rationale for >>>> holding it publicly. I've gone back and reviewed the messages I >>>> could find, but haven't seen one. I had thought we would be voting >>>> privately in the week beforehand with the results announced at the >>>> meeting. >>>> >>>> I object to our having to hold the election as a roll call vote. I >>>> believe all Councilors should be permitted to cast votes privately. >>>> Casting open ballots will not be conducive to the improved working >>>> relationship that many of us have articulated a desire to develop. >>>> Moreover, given that I have found the environment at ICANN meetings >>>> generally (including public Council meetings) to be hostile, I >>>> believe casting those votes publicly is more likely than not to >>>> exacerbate that problem. >>>> >>>> In sum, I want to vote privately as we've done in the past and have >>>> the results announced at the Council meeting. Doing so has the >>>> extra >>>> benefit of having a definitive result at the Council meeting >>>> (assuming there is a clear winner); no delay from absentee balloting >>>> will occur. >>>> >>>> K >>>> >>>> >>>> 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: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Sent: Thu Oct 15 03:23:01 2009 >>>> Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 >>>> Each House determines a Candidate >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I wanted to ad a few more details to this part of the process. >>>> >>>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 08:01, Glen de Saint Géry wrote: >>>> >>>>> B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING >>>>> >>>>> For this election, the voting will take place at the public Council >>>>> meeting in Seoul on Wednesday, 28 October 2009. >>>>> >>>>> Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as >>>> non-voting chair >>>>> of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time as a >>>>> new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume the >>>>> chair responsibilities. >>>>> >>>>> If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's election, >>>>> this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 October. If no >>>>> chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on >>>> 30 October, >>>>> the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as >>>> defined in >>>>> the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as determined in >>>> the Council >>>>> Procedures. >>>>> >>>>> The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house. >>>>> >>>>> The Council shall inform the Board and the Community >>>> appropriately and >>>>> post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 >>>> business days >>>>> following the election. >>>>> >>>>> In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council >>>>> Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs will >>>>> serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be >>>>> held. >>>> >>>> Since this election will be done in the meeting, I am planning to >>>> hold it as an open vote via a roll call. This will be the second >>>> major item on the agenda, after a vote on any amendments to the >>>> proposed Operating Procedures the new Operating Procedures as >>>> possibly amended. >>>> >>>> I am hoping that all of the council members will be available for >>>> the >>>> vote, either in person or via remote communications, so that the >>>> election can be completed on the Wednesday, even if it needs to go >>>> to >>>> two rounds. If we do not have everyone available for the call, then >>>> we will need to go a 24 hour absentee ballot on each round. This >>>> means that the first round would not end until Thursday morning. If >>>> necessary we could schedule a second round for Thursday, though we >>>> would then need to allow for voting at the Thursday meeting, which >>>> would be an exception to our normal practice. In this case a second >>>> absentee ballot would end on Friday afternoon. In any case, the >>>> goal >>>> is to enable the election of the new chair, if at all possible, by >>>> the end of the Seoul meeting. >>>> >>>> As I said, I am hoping we can avoid needing to do an absentee ballot >>>> so I hope that any council member who cannot attend the meeting can >>>> participate remote in al least the first part of the Wednesday >>>> meeting. >>>> >>>> Assuming we have a different candidate from each House, each council >>>> member polled would in turn be able to vote for: >>>> >>>> Candidate chosen by Contracted Parties House (CP House or, Candidate >>>> chosen by Non Contracted Parties House (NCP House) or, None of the >>>> above >>>> >>>> (In the case of a single candidate chosen by both Houses, the vote >>>> would resemble the second round procedure below) >>>> >>>> The votes would be tabulated separately according to House, though >>>> the roll will be called alphabetically. >>>> >>>> To succeed a candidate needs 60% or each house. This means 5 out >>>> of >>>> 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House. >>>> >>>> - If either the CP House candidate or NCP House candidate get 60% >>>> of each House, he or she will have been elected and will take over >>>> as >>>> chair of the meeting at that point. >>>> >>>> - If 'None of the above' gets 60% of each house, then the election >>>> is >>>> halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two >>>> vice- >>>> chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week. >>>> >>>> - If neither of the candidates (or "none of the above") gets the >>>> required 60% of each house, then a second round is called for. >>>> >>>> Assuming every one is present on Wednesday morning, we can hold this >>>> second round vote immediately, otherwise we can hold it on Thursday. >>>> >>>> The second roll call vote will be between: >>>> >>>> The candidate who received the greatest combined percentage of the >>>> votes when the results of each house is summed to the other >>>> (Percentage from CP House + Percentage from NCP House) or, None of >>>> the above >>>> >>>> If the candidate receives 60% votes of each House ( out of 7 votes >>>> for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP >>>> House) then that candidate has been elected and will take over as >>>> chair of the meeting at that point. >>>> >>>> Otherwise, the election then the election is halted and rescheduled >>>> for a month later. In this case the two vice-chairs will take over >>>> as interim co-chairs at the end of the week. >>>> >>>> I believe this process follows from the rules set for the election >>>> of >>>> chairs in the new bi-cameral council. I very much look forward to >>>> completing a successful election on Wednesday morning. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> a. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> > > Attachment:
smime.p7s
|