ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

Hi Avri,

Two questions.

On Oct 16, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

As there is a difference of opinion within the council on this, it seems to me the only path is to vote on whether this ballot is secret or not.

If we do this, would the votes on whether to have a secret vote be publicly record, as with a motion, or is this qualitatively different? I'm not familiar with past practice and don't have time at the moment to search the bylaws for a deconstructable passage.

As I said, I will ask staff to make sure we are set up for a secret ballot, should the vote go that way. And I see this as being a vote that will only required a majority of the two houses under the new Council Procedures that will, hopefully, be approved by then.

If the vote goes this way, what happens to the rights of elected representatives to have their vote publicly known? Can we publicly announce our votes anyway, or would we be constrained from doing so? If it is the latter then NCUC and perhaps the appointed councilors will not be able to participate. There is no way in hell we tell our constituents sorry, we can't tell you how we voted, and frankly it would be pretty embarrassing in the world outside the moat as well.

One might add that it is at least worth contemplating whether a secret election is in ICANN's institutional interest at this particular geopolitical juncture. It certainly would be something for the AoC review panel on accountability to chew on, and would be a real field day for ICANN's critics in government, civil society, the press, etc around the world.



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>