RE: [council] URGENT AOC RT Voting Clarifications

[<HughesDeb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Wendy's comments below.

On another note, I am very disappointed that we have been entertaining
"re-doing" or "un-doing" the decisions made and hard work performed by a
very productive team.  To the extent we are now clarifying issues,
that's fine.  However, it seems unproductive and disingenuous to revisit
our team's well thought out and approved decisions.

Debbie

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 8:22 AM
To: William Drake
Cc: GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] URGENT AOC RT Voting Clarifications


I support Bill's interpretation -- for the open slot, I agree anyone who
has not yet been allocated to a slot should be eligible for selection.
Two rounds of voting, if necessary, sounds appropriate.

Thanks Bill for all your hard work here!
--Wendy


William Drake wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I'm afraid there are two outstanding issues about the election
process, sigh...
> 
> I.  Pool Subject to Voting
> 
> Since a) the council will be having an open meeting tomorrow in which
we may need to explain details of the process, b) I am told that some
members of other SGs gathered here in Nairobi have concerns about
possible RT election scenarios, and c) Tim has raised concerns about the
process winnowing the pool, I want to make sure everyone is on the same
page on a key point regarding the house election for the 5th and 6th RT
pool slots.  Wolf raised this with me the other day as well.
> 
> Based on discussions in the drafting team, some weeks ago Chuck
notified SG chairs that they could endorse up to two candidates for the
"open" (not the "unaffiliated") slot that is subject to election by the
House  (actually I think the initial bracketed language he used was two
"alternates").   Nobody ever objected so we let that stand as a
limitation.   Alas, during the frenzied Council call when we adopted the
motion minutes after finding out the revised dates for the process, we
were focused on other issues and didn't manage to discuss and draw it
into the process document that was the subject of the motion.  One could
argue then that since the Council didn't formally specify and approve
this element, we can interpret it however we want without doing any
violence to the agreed process.
> 
> I can see two ways to interpret what we agreed:
> 
> 1.  SG endorsements of up to two candidate for the open elected slot
simply signals SG support for two out of the list of competitors.  So,
for example (the precise number is pending agreement within the ET) it
appears that there may be five candidates that are affiliated with the
CSG.  The CSG endorses (i.e. says "we favor") two, which the houses may
wish to take into account in voting, but the other three remain in the
pool that will be voted on.  
> 
> 2.  Instead,  SG endorsements of up to two candidate for the open
elected slot means that they select only those two to stand for
election, and the others fall out and are not on the ballot.  
> 
> By my personal not-ratified-by-the-ET count, the twelve candidates
should be classified as follows:
> 
> 1 person who will be held out of the pool as his first choice is to be
considered for the Security and Stability RT
> 1 RgySG person
> 1 RgrSG person
> 5 CSG persons
> 2 NCSG persons
> 2 independent/unaffiliated persons
> 
> Without prejudging the decisions they will make, I would guess that
the RgySG and RgrSG would choose the people affiliated with them for the
allocated slots, which are not subject to the election.  NCSG has
selected a person for its allocated slot.  This would mean then that the
potential competition for the open elected slot is between 4 of the 5
CSG people (assuming they choose one for the allocated slot) and one
NCSG person.  (Of course the RgySG and RgrSG could opt not to put the
two into the allocated slots, in which case you'd have to add one or two
to the pool being voted on).
> 
> So: for that election, would the Council like to 
> 
> 1.  Have all five people competing, with CSG's endorsement of up to
two meaning only that they prefer them, or
> 2.  Interpret the endorsement as meaning that only those two can stand
for election, in which case the pool for the vote would be 2 CSG + 1
NCSG?
> 
> My preference would be that it be open, option 1.  Per Tim, this also
gives everyone a chance at being elected.  Moreover, I would add that if
we don't view SG endorsements of x as taking y out of the pool, there's
another option, namely that CSG could choose not to endorse any of them,
so that it doesn't have to make uncomfortable choices among colleagues
and all get to stand.
> 
> 
> II.  Voting Process
> 
> I raised this before with the DT and ET, didn't get a clear answer,
and there was no further pre-travel discussion.  If on the voting call
no candidates get majorities of both houses, we can either a) stop there
and say nobody wins that slot; b) do a second vote, in which hopefully
enough people would shift their positions to put someone over the top,
and if the 2nd doesn't work either, just agree nobody wins; or c) keep
doing voting rounds until someone wins.
> 
> Obviously, a) is the easiest, but b) or c) would be fairer to the
candidates.  I'd personally prefer b).
> 
> The same would presumably apply to the vote for the unaffiliated slot.
> 
> 
> It would be really great to clarify these two items before the open
meeting.  Can we do this by consensus or do we need to have a quick
motion?  Responses would be very much appreciated.
> 
> Sorry...i can assure you nobody is more tired of this than I.
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
>