RE: [council] URGENT AOC RT Voting Clarifications

["Mary Wong" <MWong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi everyone,
 
My understanding of the process is the same as what Bill outlined in his email.
 
Additionally, I would like to support the Council/GNSO abiding by the process 
that the DT for this issue has developed and that we approved. It would negate 
any real meaning of being "GNSO endorsed" if individual SG could separately and 
thereafter provide additional lists of preferred candidates to Peter and Janis. 
In any event, there's nothing to stop Peter and Janis (in theory at least) from 
not picking from the GNSO-endorsed candidate pool and going to the other names, 
so it's important that the GNSO sticks to its agreed process.
 
Cheers
Mary
 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate 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


>>> 


From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To:"William Drake" <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "GNSO Council List" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 3/9/2010 2:21 PM
Subject: RE: [council] URGENT AOC RT Voting Clarifications

I prefer b as well but time permitting would be willing to go another
round if it appears that it might produce better results.

The RySG finished its work on this today: 1) We endorsed one candidate
for the RySG slot; 2) we endorsed one candidate for the unaffiliated
slot; 3) out of the remaining candidates, we identified the ones that
our Councilors could support in any votes for the fully open slot.  I
believe that our Councilors then will have all the information they need
to participate in the voting process. 

It is difficult to plan a process for this until we see the ET
recommendations so I think we will have to decide on that at the
beginning of the meeting. Of course, the ET is welcome to recommend a
process in addition to making recommendations regarding candidates for
the two open slots.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 7:45 AM
> To: GNSO Council List
> Subject: [council] URGENT AOC RT Voting Clarifications
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>