[council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate

[Alan Greenberg]

I wasn't suggesting that only those who were 
present be counted. I ask (or perhaps suggested) 
that there is no need for the absentee ballots 
*IF* a sufficiently high vote is achieved by the 
real-time vote to say who the winner is. That is, 
there is no point in collecting the absentee 
votes if they won't change the outcome.

Alan

At 15/10/2009 01:58 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
>I like that proposal, all apart from the absentees giving their votes to a
>"trusted third party". In that respect I would go with Alan's suggestion
>that only those present by counted.
>
>Stéphane
>
>
>Le 15/10/09 17:51, « Avri Doria » <avri at acm.org> a écrit :
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think this is somewhat different.  I would like to propose a
> > solution that relies on our normal process of taking a vote anytime we
> > decide to make something secret.
> >
> > So I would like to suggest that we take a vote on making the ballot a
> > secret ballot.  We can do this after having voted on the Council
> > Procedures and before stating the discussions on the election.    By
> > those, as of yet not approved procedures, this would require a
> > majority vote of each house of  those present.
> >
> > In the meantime we will also ask staff to prepare paper ballots to be
> > used if secret balloting prevailed.   Different ballots (different
> > color paper) for each of the houses.
> >
> > ballot for the first ballot:
> >
> > Name of Candidate from CP House
> > Name of Candidate from NCP House
> > None of the above
> >
> >
> > ballot for the 2nd round*
> >
> > Candidate who had greatest total percentage in the first round (don't
> > need name)
> > None of the above
> >
> > -
> > Those who are absent could send their votes to a trusted staff person
> > (or other trusted attendee - e.g. we could ask the Nomcom chair to act
> > in this capacity) who would transfer them to ballots and put them in
> > the ballot box with the others.
> >
> > Would this work for people?
> >
> > a.
> >
> > * in the odd even that we have an equal total percentage for each
> > candidate, we should postpone the second round until each candidate
> > has had a chance to discuss their positions further with the council
> > and then another round would be identical to the first round.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 15 Oct 2009, at 16:46, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
> >
> >> Given that we have always taken the position that a vote can be a
> >> roll call vote (as opposed to one by acclamation) on the request of
> >> one Councilor, my request for a secret ballot should be sufficient.
> >>
> >> If it's not secret, I will not vote.  Period.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-
> >> council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:56 AM
> >> To: Council GNSO
> >> Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2
> >> Each House determines a Candidate
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Don't know.  Worth checking.  Though the system may have to be
> >> reworked for the bi-cameral nature of the vote.
> >>
> >> We can certainly do paper ballots where one indicates not only their
> >> vote but their House.
> >>
> >> Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot?
> >>
> >> a.
> >>
> >> On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> >>
> >>> Is there any reason why we couldn't hold a live email election?  I
> >>> don't know the limitations of the election software.
> >>>
> >>> Chuck
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> >>>> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:25 AM
> >>>> To: avri at psg.com; council at gnso.icann.org
> >>>> Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2
> >>>> Each House determines a Candidate
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> To my recollection, none of our previous elections while I have been
> >>>> on Council have been public.  I thought I'd missed the rationale for
> >>>> holding it publicly.  I've gone back and reviewed the messages I
> >>>> could find, but haven't seen one.  I had thought we would be voting
> >>>> privately in the week beforehand with the results announced at the
> >>>> meeting.
> >>>>
> >>>> I object to our having to hold the election as a roll call vote.  I
> >>>> believe all Councilors should be permitted to cast votes privately.
> >>>> Casting open ballots will not be conducive to the improved working
> >>>> relationship that many of us have articulated a desire to develop.
> >>>> Moreover, given that I have found the environment at ICANN meetings
> >>>> generally (including public Council meetings) to be hostile, I
> >>>> believe casting those votes publicly is more likely than not to
> >>>> exacerbate that problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> In sum, I want to vote privately as we've done in the past and have
> >>>> the results announced at the Council meeting.  Doing so has the
> >>>> extra
> >>>> benefit of having a definitive result at the Council meeting
> >>>> (assuming there is a clear winner); no delay from absentee balloting
> >>>> will occur.
> >>>>
> >>>> K
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Kristina Rosette
> >>>> Covington & Burling LLP
> >>>> 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
> >>>> Washington, DC  20004-2401
> >>>> voice:  202-662-5173
> >>>> direct fax:  202-778-5173
> >>>> main fax:  202-662-6291
> >>>> e-mail:  krosette at cov.com
> >>>>
> >>>> This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is
> >>>> confidential or legally privileged.  If you are not the intended
> >>>> recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that
> >>>> this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete
> >>>> this e-mail from your system.
> >>>> Thank you for your cooperation.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -------------------------
> >>>> Sent from my Wireless Handheld
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org <owner-council at gnso.icann.org>
> >>>> To: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
> >>>> Sent: Thu Oct 15 03:23:01 2009
> >>>> Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2
> >>>> Each House determines a Candidate
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I wanted to ad a few more details to this part of the process.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 08:01, Glen de Saint Géry wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For this election, the voting will take place at the public Council
> >>>>> meeting in Seoul on Wednesday, 28 October 2009.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as
> >>>> non-voting chair
> >>>>> of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time as a
> >>>>> new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume the
> >>>>> chair responsibilities.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's election,
> >>>>> this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 October. If no
> >>>>> chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on
> >>>> 30 October,
> >>>>> the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as
> >>>> defined in
> >>>>> the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as determined in
> >>>> the Council
> >>>>> Procedures.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Council shall inform the Board and the Community
> >>>> appropriately and
> >>>>> post the election results on the GNSO website within 2
> >>>> business days
> >>>>> following the election.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council
> >>>>> Chair by the end of the previous Chair's term, the Vice-Chairs will
> >>>>> serve as Interim GNSO Co-Chairs until a successful election can be
> >>>>> held.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since this election will be done in the meeting, I am planning to
> >>>> hold it as an open vote via a roll call.  This will be the second
> >>>> major item on the agenda, after a vote on any amendments to the
> >>>> proposed Operating Procedures the new Operating Procedures as
> >>>> possibly amended.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am hoping that all of the council members will be available for
> >>>> the
> >>>> vote, either in person or via remote communications, so that the
> >>>> election can be completed on the Wednesday, even if it needs to go
> >>>> to
> >>>> two rounds.  If we do not have everyone available for the call, then
> >>>> we will need to go a 24 hour absentee ballot on each round.  This
> >>>> means that the first round would not end until Thursday morning.  If
> >>>> necessary we could schedule a second round for Thursday, though we
> >>>> would then need to allow for voting at the Thursday meeting, which
> >>>> would be an exception to our normal practice.  In this case a second
> >>>> absentee ballot would end on Friday afternoon.  In any case, the
> >>>> goal
> >>>> is to enable the election of the new chair, if at all possible, by
> >>>> the end of the Seoul meeting.
> >>>>
> >>>> As I said, I am hoping we can avoid needing to do an absentee ballot
> >>>> so I hope that any council member who cannot attend the meeting can
> >>>> participate remote in al least the first part of the Wednesday
> >>>> meeting.
> >>>>
> >>>> Assuming we have a different candidate from each House, each council
> >>>> member polled would in turn be able to vote for:
> >>>>
> >>>> Candidate chosen by Contracted Parties House (CP House or, Candidate
> >>>> chosen by Non Contracted Parties House (NCP House) or, None of the
> >>>> above
> >>>>
> >>>> (In the case of a single candidate chosen by both Houses, the vote
> >>>> would resemble the second round procedure below)
> >>>>
> >>>> The votes would be tabulated separately according to House, though
> >>>> the roll will be called alphabetically.
> >>>>
> >>>> To  succeed a candidate needs 60% or each house.  This means  5 out
> >>>> of
> >>>> 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House.
> >>>>
> >>>> - If either the CP House candidate  or NCP House candidate get 60%
> >>>> of each House, he or she will have been elected and will take over
> >>>> as
> >>>> chair of the meeting at that point.
> >>>>
> >>>> - If 'None of the above' gets 60% of each house, then the election
> >>>> is
> >>>> halted and rescheduled for a month later.  In this case the two
> >>>> vice-
> >>>> chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
> >>>>
> >>>> - If neither of the candidates (or "none of the above") gets the
> >>>> required 60% of each house, then a second round is called for.
> >>>>
> >>>> Assuming every one is present on Wednesday morning, we can hold this
> >>>> second round vote immediately, otherwise we can hold it on Thursday.
> >>>>
> >>>> The second roll call vote will be between:
> >>>>
> >>>> The candidate who received the greatest combined percentage of the
> >>>> votes when the results of each house is summed to the other
> >>>> (Percentage from CP House + Percentage from NCP House) or, None of
> >>>> the above
> >>>>
> >>>> If the candidate receives 60% votes of each House ( out of 7 votes
> >>>> for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP
> >>>> House) then that candidate has been elected and will take over as
> >>>> chair of the meeting at that point.
> >>>>
> >>>> Otherwise, the election then the election is halted and rescheduled
> >>>> for a month later.  In this case the two vice-chairs will take over
> >>>> as interim co-chairs at the end of the week.
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe this process follows from the rules set for the election
> >>>> of
> >>>> chairs in the new bi-cameral council.  I very much look forward to
> >>>> completing a successful election on Wednesday morning.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> a.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>