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

[William Drake]

Hi Cyril,

On Oct 17, 2009, at 5:11 AM, Cyril Chua wrote:

> I agree with Mary that there is a lot of mistrust amongst the ICANN  
> stakeholder groups and it would be easier to built trust if everyone  
> is given the space to cast a secret ballot.

Actually, what she said (below) was the opposite, that as there is  
mistrust in the ICANN community generally, transparency and  
accountability are important, and hence there should not be a secret  
ballot.

Anyway, there's obviously a variety of views that won't be squared  
through further debate, so let's just vote and move on.  As long as  
there is no gag order and people's right to publicly declare their  
stance per usual is not violated, those of us who are compelled to  
abide by transparency will be able to participate regardless and to  
avail ourselves of that right at the public meeting.

Best,

Bill
>
> 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.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20091017/2d123267/attachment.html>