Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Very sensible. I'm angry at myself for not having thought of that. Stéphane Le 15/10/09 20:10, « Rosette, Kristina » <krosette@xxxxxxx> a écrit : > 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> Attachment:
smime.p7s
|