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

[Gomes, Chuck]

Strictly from a personal point of view:  

*	
	I favor an open ballot for accountability and transparency
reasons, but I also respect the concerns of individual Councilors.
*	
	If just one Councilor requests a secret ballot, I then am fine
with a secret ballot with at least one caveat that the votes of each
SG's reps be communicated to the SG.
*	
	If am fine with Avri's suggestion to poll the Council regarding
whether to hold a secret or open ballot.

I have raised this issue on the RySG list and am waiting their
direction.  In the end I will respond to the poll in accordance with
that direction and not my personal views.
 
Chuck


________________________________

	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong
	Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 12:18 AM
	Cc: Council GNSO
	Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed -
Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
	
	
	Hi
	
	On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
	> Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret
ballot?
	
	I think that at a time when there seems to be a lot of mistrust
amongst the ICANN community and. more importantly, when there are many
new entrants/participants and Councillors, it's important to have
complete transparency in the GNSO processes. As such, I don't support
the idea of a secret ballot in this case.
	
	Cheers
	Mary
	 
	 
	Mary W S Wong
	Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs
	Franklin Pierce Law Center
	Two White Street
	Concord, NH 03301
	USA
	Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu
	Phone: 1-603-513-5143
	Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
	Selected writings available on the Social Science Research
Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20091016/e527ce6c/attachment.html>