RE: [council] URGENT AOC RT Voting Clarifications

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

You probably already received the answer to this Tim: Yes.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 8:22 AM
> To: William Drake
> Cc: GNSO Council List
> Subject: RE: [council] URGENT AOC RT Voting Clarifications
> 
> 
> Whatever happens, under this process, we still have until the 
> 14 March, correct?
> 
> Tim  
>  
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [council] URGENT AOC RT Voting Clarifications
> From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, March 09, 2010 6:45 am
> To: GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>