<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Strictly from a personal point of view:
*
I favor an open ballot for accountability and transparency
reasons, but I also respect the concerns of individual Councilors.
*
If just one Councilor requests a secret ballot, I then am fine
with a secret ballot with at least one caveat that the votes of each
SG's reps be communicated to the SG.
*
If am fine with Avri's suggestion to poll the Council regarding
whether to hold a secret or open ballot.
I have raised this issue on the RySG list and am waiting their
direction. In the end I will respond to the poll in accordance with
that direction and not my personal views.
Chuck
________________________________
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:18 AM
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed -
Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
Hi
On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret
ballot?
I think that at a time when there seems to be a lot of mistrust
amongst the ICANN community and. more importantly, when there are many
new entrants/participants and Councillors, it's important to have
complete transparency in the GNSO processes. As such, I don't support
the idea of a secret ballot in this case.
Cheers
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs
Franklin Pierce Law Center
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mwong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research
Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|