Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
1. It would be my inclination to hold this as a polled vote where each
voting member of the council would be asked whether they voted to
close the ballot. While we have voted on closing meetings, we have
never voted to close a vote: they either were held by email, as a
secret ballot, or were held in meeting as open ballots. I would treat
closing the vote in the same way I have treated closing a meeting.
2. I know of no occasion where a GNSO council member has been
restricted in declaring how he or she voted and why. While I suppose
that the GNSO Council could decide on a gag rule, I expect that this
would have to done explicitly by motion.
On 16 Oct 2009, at 10:54, William Drake wrote:
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.