<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] RE: Election of RC Reps to the GNSO Council
- To: "'Robert F. Connelly'" <rconnell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Registrars Constituency'" <registrars@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: Election of RC Reps to the GNSO Council
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 11:13:43 -0500
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <5.2.1.1.2.20031002084614.05bef480@206.16.184.129>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I guess I wasn't thinking we would run them concurrently. We first take
the candidates and vote on the 2-year seat. Then we vote on the 1-year
seat (but the winner of the first ballot is not on this one). Finally we
vote on the alternate. But that's a very drawn out process.
Perhaps Rick makes the best suggestion, especially if there are only
three candidates anyway.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 9:48 AM
To: Registrars Constituency
Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: Election of RC Reps to the GNSO Council
At 10:42 AM 10/2/03 -0500, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>What about three ballots - one for each seat and one for the alternate?
>
>Tim
Dear Tim: I am ruminating over how to handle it if we have four
candidates
representing three regions.
Having three ballots could result in some members voting for the same
person on all three ballots. Regards, BobC
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|