RE: AW: [council] Re: Suggested election time lines

["Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1

Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: AW: [council] Re: Suggested election time lines
> From: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Fri, July 15, 2011 1:46 am
> To: <Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
>  
> I understand the issues raised by the NCSG. 
> However I'm opposed to postpone council chair elections. I'm also not a 
> friend of mixing up competencies of different institutions (SG/constituency 
> and 
> council). My proposal (for this time) covered by the rules and 
> bylaws:
>  
> - take option 1 of Stéphane's paper: this allows for 3 
> weeks more time of candidate nomination than option 2
> - in case new councillors 
> can't be seated in time let the incumbents vote
>  
> This discussion arises only from the requirement that new 
> council members should be given a chance to vote and the time constraints 
> between chair election and new council seating. To my knowledge it was not 
> covered during the bylaws and rules of procedure review. It could be an 
> agenda 
> item for the SCI to find a viable solution for the future - if the council so 
> wishes.
>  
>  
>  
> Kind regards
> Wolf-Ulrich 
> 
>   
>   
>   Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>   [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von 
>   Mary.Wong@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Gesendet: Freitag, 15. Juli 2011 
>   01:12
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Betreff: RE: [council] Re: 
>   Suggested election time lines
> 
> 
>   
>   Hello - I can try to explain some of the issues. NCSG intends fully to 
>   comply with and meet all the mandated deadlines; however, the Council 
> should 
>   know that we are probably laboring under greater pressure than most of the 
>   other groups. This is because the new NCSG Charter was just approved by the 
>   Board in Singapore, and we've also had a large number of new members (both 
>   directly into the SG and through the newly-approved Not for Profit 
> Operational 
>   Concerns (NPOC) Constituency). We will also have to elect (or re-elect, as 
> may 
>   happen) 4 Councilors, including transitioning from having 3 Board appointed 
>   Councilors to all Councilors being elected by the SG (i.e. under the 
> approved 
>   Charter, elections for Council seats are SG-wide, not via Constituencies), 
>   which can happen only procedurally after the new Charter is formally 
> approved 
>   and accepted by the SG membership. 
>   Mind you, I'm not making an early excuse for delay - like I said, we 
>   (especially our SG Chair and Executive Committee) are working hard to make 
>   sure not only that all relevant time lines are met, but that the elections 
> are 
>   sufficiently well-publicized so that we will have good candidates coming 
>   forward (from various geographical regions, as mandated by our Charter) and 
>   that all SG members (especially the newer ones) know about the elections 
> and 
>   can participate fully. 
>   Hopefully this explains some of the concerns that have been raised and 
>   gives the Council a sense of what we are having to do within NCSG. 
>   
>   Cheers 
>   Mary   
>   
> 
> 
> Mary W S Wong 
> Professor 
>   of Law 
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs 
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL 
>   OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: 
> mary.wong@xxxxxxx.eduPhone: 
>   1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected 
>   writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: 
> http://ssrn.com/author=437584 
> As 
>   of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the 
>   University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New 
>   Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed 
> and 
>   now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@xxxxxxxxxxx. For more 
>   information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit 
>   law.unh.edu 
> 
> >>> 
>   
>     
>     
>       
>         
>         
>           
>           
>             
>               From: 
> 
> 
>             
>               Adrian Kinderis 
>               <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> 
>           
>             
>               To: 
> 
>             
>               Stéphane Van 
>               Gelder<stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, "Neuman, Jeff" 
>               <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> 
> 
>           
>             
>               CC: 
> 
>             
>               Wendy Seltzer 
>               <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Council GNSO 
>               <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> 
>           
>             
>               Date: 
> 
> 
>             
>               7/14/2011 5:59 PM 
>               
> 
>           
>             
>               Subject: 
>             
> 
>             
>               RE: [council] Re: 
>               Suggested election time lines 
> 
>         
> I agree with Jeff and 
>         SVG.
> 
> How typical of our GNSO/ ICANN psyche that we instantly look 
>         to move a deadline rather than address the issue of 
>         tardiness...
> 
> Adrian Kinderis
> 
> 
> -----Original 
>         Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>         [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van 
>         Gelder
> Sent: Friday, 15 July 2011 7:42 AM
> To: Neuman, Jeff
> Cc: 
>         Wendy Seltzer; Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Re: Suggested 
>         election time lines
> 
> 
> Agree with Jeff that extending is not an 
>         option. If SGs find they cannot elect their new reps in time for 
> Dakar, 
>         then they should look to extend the terms of their own Councillors so 
> as 
>         not to impact the bylaw-mandated leadership election 
>         timeline.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Stéphane
> 
> Envoyé de mon 
>         iPhone4
> 
> Le 14 juil. 2011 à 21:09, "Neuman, Jeff" 
>         <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 
> > The election 
>         timelines are set forth in the Bylaws.  Given that we still have 3 
>         months until the annual meeting, shouldn't that be enough time to get 
>         everything done?
> >
> > Jeffrey J. Neuman
> > Neustar, Inc. 
>         / Vice President, Law & Policy
> > Please note new 
>         address:  21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling VA 
>         20166    
> >
> >
> > -----Original 
>         Message-----
> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>         [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer
> > 
>         Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 3:05 PM
> > To: Stéphane Van 
>         Gelder
> > Cc: Council GNSO
> > Subject: Re: [council] Re: 
>         Suggested election time lines
> >
> >
> > NCSG is also 
>         working on its Council elections.
> >
> > A third option would 
>         be to postpone our Council elections (and briefly
> > extend the 
>         terms of current officers) if some SGs need a slightly longer
> > 
>         window to complete their Councillor elections first.
> >
> > 
>         --Wendy
> >
> > On 07/14/2011 07:52 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder 
>         wrote:
> >> Thanks Wendy for your 
>         comments.
> >>
> >> Yes that is correct, we designed 
>         option 1 to address the points made at the previous election and 
> allow 
>         for the new Council to elect its Chair.
> >>
> >> However, 
>         I think it's worth stressing that for this option to be viable, we 
> need 
>         to be sure that all SGs that are due to replace Councillors will have 
>         done so in plenty of time for this vote to take 
>         place.
> >>
> >> So my message was also a request to you, 
>         as representatives of your groups, to let the Council leadership and 
>         secretariat know if your own individual elections would be done in 
>         time?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> 
>         Stéphane
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Le 13 juil. 
>         2011 à 18:34, Wendy Seltzer a écrit 
>         :
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for getting the 
>         conversation started Stéphane,
> >>>
> >>> Does the 
>         second, electronic, option assume that the voters would be 
>         the
> >>> old Councillors, since the new ones will not be 
>         seated until the end of
> >>> the AGM?  If so, I would 
>         strongly support option 1, to give the
> >>> Councillors who 
>         will be serving under the chair an opportunity to vote
> >>> 
>         in the Chair's election.
> >>>
> >>> 
>         --Wendy
> >>>
> >>> On 07/13/2011 12:17 PM, Stéphane 
>         Van Gelder wrote:
> >>>> 
>         Councillors,
> >>>>
> >>>> As a follow-up to 
>         this, please see attached a slightly modified note. The change is 
> just 
>         to clarify one of the election procedure 
>         scenarios.
> >>>>
> >>>> 
>         Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> 
>         Stéphane
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 
>         Le 11 juil. 2011 à 17:18, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit 
>         :
> >>>>
> >>>>> 
>         Councillors,
> >>>>> A t
> >>>>> As the 
>         Dakar meeting looms, one of the items we must cover is the elections 
> of 
>         the next Council Chair (the VCs are house-specific and therefore do 
> not 
>         need to be determined 
>         here).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You will remember 
>         that last year's elections gave rise to some debate, and that the 
>         Council felt it would be useful to plan ahead a little more for this 
>         year.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To start this 
>         process along, I have been working with Glen to produce two possible 
>         scenarios for running the elections. These are attached. My thanks to 
>         Glen for her hard work on 
>         this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As you will see 
>         from the attached, the options we have looked at are to try and 
> address 
>         the wish that was expressed by some last year that it be the new 
> Council 
>         that elect the Chair. There are some scheduling issues to address, 
> and 
>         if the Council decides to elect its new Chair in Dakar, then we will 
>         have to work closely with those SGs electing new Councillors to 
> ensure 
>         that those elections are done in plenty of time to allow for the 
> Chair 
>         election to happen.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We 
>         also ask the question, if we have an election in Dakar (rather than 
> the 
>         2nd option of an electronic ballot beforehand) of whether the vote 
>         should be by open or secret 
>         ballot.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Please let us 
>         have your comments on these 
>         proposals.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 
>         Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 
>         Stéphane
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>