Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
- To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
- From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:08:04 -0400
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcpOQKe7ArARyNojSgOvBCj3GK9XSgAGKktV
- Thread-topic: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Why is this akin to closing the meeting? Much more similar to voting by email.
Let me be clear: I personally could care less about whether a person I do not
vote for is unhappy with me. I do care if that person will hold that vote
against my constituency or stakeholder group. I believe that starting a new
Council with the possibility of such resentment is not prudent. Finally, I
have enough hostility directed at me at ICANN meetings as it is. I should be
free to cast my vote without worrying about possible repercussions in the form
of greater hostility.
On a personal note, I am dismayed that this is even an issue. I don't want to
be harassed for how I vote. Why is this not an acceptable reason for us to
cast ballots on paper during the meeting?
Covington & Burling LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-2401
direct fax: 202-778-5173
main fax: 202-662-6291
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: Fri Oct 16 05:09:38 2009
Subject: 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:
> 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.