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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Thu Oct 15 20:07:40 UTC 2009


Clearly not MY call, but if the actual tallies 
are not made public, I am not sure I agree.  Alan

At 15/10/2009 02:37 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

>Hi,
>
>So are you suggesting we count the votes and then decide if we need to
>have more people vote?
>
>I think that would fail some sort of open and fair election rules.
>
>a.
>
>On 15 Oct 2009, at 20:34, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
> >
> > 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.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >






More information about the council mailing list