RE: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Are we even going to have any absentee Councilors?  Let's figure that out 
first.  Would rather not muck around with absentee voting provisions if we 
don't need to.  Not as if we don't have anything else to do. 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 1:58 PM
To: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
Subject: 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.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>