[council] RE: Amended Motion to Approve Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition

Stéphane Van Gelder stephane.vangelder at indom.com
Mon Sep 21 09:32:29 UTC 2009

Adrian's suggestion makes a lot of sense.

Let me push it a little further and add one of my own...
Electing both the chair and vice-chairs (in that order), on the same day
would probably make the whole process run more smoothly. And electing the
chair before the vice-chairs reduces the likelihood of the Council failing
to complete that election.


Le 20/09/09 14:33, « Avri Doria » <avri at psg.com> a écrit :

> Hi Adrain,
> I do not think that being elected a Vice-chair would preclude someone
> from running for chair, but it would mean that if they succeeded, a
> new vice-chair would need to be elected.
> I think the reason for suggesting that the vice-chairs be elected up
> front is to make sure that they are in place should the council fail
> to elect a chair during the meeting.
> I think, in general, when not trying to effect this transition, the
> vice-chair elections would happen after the chair election as has been
> the case up until now. I.e. this is a one time thing.
> a.
> On 20 Sep 2009, at 07:51, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
>> Chuck et al,
>> A few quick questions and potentially some follow up on this (and
>> sorry if I am a little behind on this).
>> Is there rationale for electing Vice-Chairs prior to the Chair?
>> Would the election of a Vice-Chair, assuming the election is held
>> before the election for Chair, exclude a candidate from running for
>> Chair?
>> Depending on your answers I may propose that the elections be held
>> in reverse as this seems, on the surface at least, to be a little
>> unworkable and potentially problematic. I will await your response
>> prior to commenting further.
>> Thanks.
>> Adrian Kinderis
>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-
>> council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
>> Sent: Friday, 18 September 2009 5:01 AM
>> To: Council GNSO
>> Subject: [council] Amended Motion to Approve Plan for Bicameral
>> Council Seat Transition
>> Importance: High
>> Attached you will find a clean and a redline version of a revised
>> motion to approve the Plan for Bicameral Council Seat Transition
>> (i.e., an implementation plan for the new bicameral Council).  Note
>> that I submitted the original motion two days ago but Avri, Staff
>> and I discovered some changes that were needed after consultation
>> with the GC office and in our own discussions.  The clean version is
>> also posted on the wiki at
>> https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?24_sept_motions
>> .
>> This motion is on our agenda for our meeting next week on 24
>> September 2009 so please forward it to your respective groups for
>> review and comment as soon as possible for their review and comment.
>> In the redline version you will see that quite a few changes were
>> made, although the overall essence of the plan is very similar to
>> what it was; quite a few needed details were added.
>> The clean version is probably the easiest to use but those of you
>> who already reviewed the original motion may find it helpful to
>> refer to the redline version so that you can easily see the changes
>> that were made.  Also, the redline version contains comments that
>> were exchanged by Avri, ICANN Staff and I in the process; they
>> hopefully will provide the rationale for the amendments made.  If
>> anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask.
>> As before, amendment suggestions are welcome.
>> Chuck Gomes
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2161 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20090921/21f7140b/smime.p7s>

More information about the council mailing list