[council] RE: Board Seat election

[tony.ar.holmes at bt.com]

Bruce

Thanks, this is very helpful. 

I think clarity over point 3 is essential as this could impact the
result. It would not be good if the election took place and then became
subject to challenge because one candidate was subsequently ruled
'unelectable' after voting.

It is not unreasonable to request that ICANN make all every effort to
complete the reconsideration process within the (very reasonable) time
line you set out. 

The timeline for such action as specified within the By-Laws should be
viewed as the maximum period allowed, not the norm.

Tony
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: 07 May 2006 00:05
To: council at gnso.icann.org
Subject: [council] RE: Board Seat election

Hello Tony,

I think that it is actually good that we have an impressive group of
candidates to consider.

I propose the following next steps:

(1) I will formally ask the General Counsel to check the eligibility of
all the nominated candidates against the various bylaw provisions
relating to the selection of Board directors.


(2) I will invite each of the candidates to submit a statement of
interest consistent with the approach taken recently by the GNSO
Council.


(3) I am aware that one of the candidates, Marilyn Cade, has:

   (a) Sought advice from the General Counsel on her eligibility

   (b) Asked the ombudsman to review her eligibility

   (c) Has formally submitted a Reconsideration Request to the ICANN
Board

I am hoping that the reconsideration request can be considered promptly
so that the outcome will be known before we need to vote.


(4) I will arrange a teleconference for each of the candidates to
address the GNSO Council, and also allow Council members to ask the
candidates questions.  I also suggest constituencies consider offering
the opportunity for the candidates to address constituency members.


(5) After the steps above are complete, I will arrange a teleconference
for an election.


We currently have scheduled a Council meeting for 18 May 2006.  That
might be a good time for step (4) above.   I hope we can complete the
process by the end of May 2006.

I also urge all Council members to keep an open mind regarding the
candidates, and take the time to consider further information about the
candidates as it emerges through the processes above.   Our job is
ultimately to choose the candidate that adds the most value to the ICANN
Board.

Any suggestions regarding improving the process above are welcome.

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin