Hi,
So are you suggesting we count the votes and then decide if we need to
have more people vote?
I think that would fail some sort of open and fair election rules.
a.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 20:34, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
> I wasn't suggesting that only those who were present be counted. I
> ask (or perhaps suggested) that there is no need for the absentee
> ballots *IF* a sufficiently high vote is achieved by the real-time
> vote to say who the winner is. That is, there is no point in
> collecting the absentee votes if they won't change the outcome.
>
> Alan
>
> At 15/10/2009 01:58 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
>> 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.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
>