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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

In a truly secret ballot, which is what we are planning to set up  
provisionally (awaiting the decision of the council on closing the  
vote) it would not be possible for Glen to identify the voters.
a.

On 17 Oct 2009, at 07:31, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 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