ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< 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.


        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
        On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
        > Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret
        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.
        Mary W S Wong
        Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs
        Franklin Pierce Law Center
        Two White Street
        Concord, NH 03301
        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 >>>