[council] RE: Board Seat election

[Maureen Cubberley]

Bruce, Tony and All,

I still support this process, however, regarding Step 3, and your statement Bruce......
"I am hoping that the reconsideration request can be considered promptly
so that the outcome will be known before we need to vote."
.........a stronger statement about the reconsideration request and the timing of the decision is needed. 

I agree with Tony. This must happen before the vote is held.

Best regards,
Maureen


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: tony.ar.holmes at bt.com 
  To: Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au ; council at gnso.icann.org 
  Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 7:11 AM
  Subject: RE: [council] RE: Board Seat election


  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20060507/d972c734/attachment.html>