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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Glen could privately communicate the votes of each SG's Councilors to
the SG chair or in the case of constituencies to the Constituency
chairs.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Adrian Kinderis
> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 3:40 AM
> To: Tim Ruiz; GNSO Council 
> Subject: RE: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - 
> Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
> 
> 
> But how do you prove to your SG that is actually what you 
> voted (and that you represented them appropriately?).
> 
> Adrian Kinderis
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Saturday, 17 October 2009 4:16 AM
> To: GNSO Council
> Subject: RE: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - 
> Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
> 
> 
> Chuck raises an important point. Do the CSG Councilors intend 
> that their
> votes be secret even within their SG? A secret ballot at the Council
> level is a different issue from keeping Councilors' votes secret from
> their constituents.
> 
> Tim 
>  
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2
> Each House determines a Candidate
> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, October 16, 2009 10:08 am
> To: "Mary Wong" <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>