Re: [council] URGENT AOC RT Voting Clarifications

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

hi,

I agree with my colleagues from NCSG, and I don't see any need for
"re-doing". therefore I support Bill's interpretation.

Regards

Rafik

2010/3/10 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>