[council] Chair/Vice Chair Terms

Olga Cavalli olgacavalli at gmail.com
Sun Nov 28 18:45:55 UTC 2010

I agree with Stéphane and also with the concerns expressed by Mary.
When should the vc candidates be known and elected?
This may become a relevant issue if they may act as interim chairs in the
case that the chair election is not defined in the first or second voting

2010/11/28 Mary Wong <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>

>  I agree with Stephane's suggestion, for the reason he mentions. It seems
> to me that one common thread running through the Op Procedures language is
> the assumption that the Chair and Vice-Chairs should be Council members for
> at least the duration of their respective terms, so Stephane's suggestion
> makes a great deal of sense.
> One other potential wrinkle occurred to me as I was going through the
> relevant sections, however, although I would add that this is not a scenario
> that can arise in our current election. The wrinkle is this: the Op
> Procedures state that if a Chair is NOT elected by the end of an annual
> meeting, the Vice-Chairs act as interim Chairs until a successful election
> is held. There's a possibility, however, that at some future election, one
> or both of the then-Vice-Chairs will themselves have to leave the Council at
> the end of the same annual meeting where the then-Chair steps down (e.g. due
> to term limits). In that scenario, would the affected House(s) then have
> to nominate interim Vice-Chair(s) who would serve as the interim Chair(s)?
> I ask because the Op Procedures specify that the Chair and Vice-Chairs
> cannot be from the same Stakeholder Group; thus, it would not be possible to
> nominate more "permanent" Vice-Chairs - other than interim ones - prior to
> knowing who the Chair ultimately will be.
> Another question/issue/topic for the GCOT and OSC, perhaps.
> Cheers
> Mary
>  *Mary W S Wong*
> *Professor of Law*
> *Chair, Graduate IP Programs*
> 03301 USA Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage:
> http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on
> the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
> http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>>
>     *From: * Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder at indom.com> *To:* "Gomes,
> Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> *CC:* <council at gnso.icann.org>, "Philip
> Sheppard" <philip.sheppard at aim.be>, <ray at goto.jobs> *Date: * 11/26/2010
> 7:45 PM *Subject: * Re: [council] Chair/Vice Chair Terms
> Thanks Chuck.
> I'd like to propose an initial suggestion that as each Councillor's term
> starts at the end of the AGM, it may make sense to link the Council Leaders'
> terms to that.
> In this instance, it would mean that you would serve until the end of the
> Cartagena meeting and then hand over to the Chair or VCs, depending upon the
> election results.
> This is just a first step proposal to get us through this upcoming meeting.
> But I think that going forward, the procedures need to be refined so that
> there are clear guidelines in place.
> For example, last year we made the switch to the new Council Leadership
> team during the Council Open meeting. In some ways that is a good solution
> because it means that those in the community attending the AGM can put a
> face behind the names of the new leaders. Bearing in mind that we could have
> instances when the new Chairs and VCs are also new to the Council, this may
> be helpful. On the other hand, if they are new, and therefore relatively
> inexperienced in the way the Council works, they may feel uncomfortable at
> being "thrown in the deep end" in this way...
> So it's clear that there are a lot of aspects of these procedures that need
> to be looked at. It seems like we need to agree on a way forward for
> Cartagena, and then ask the OSC and the GCOT to work on them in detail so
> that come next year, these issues do not reappear.
> Stéphane
>  Le 26 nov. 2010 à 20:24, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
>  In our ongoing saga of applying the new GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP)we have identified another missing ingredient:  Neither theBylaws nor the GOP define the exact
> terms for Council chair and vice chairs.  The Bylaws define the terms for
> Councilors as beginning and ending at the end of the ICANN Annual General
> Meeting, but no such clarification is given for the chair and vice chairs.So we have another task for the OSC/GCOT.
> In the meantime, we have a decision in front of us as to when we should
> transition to the newly elected chair.  With the lack of detail in the
> Bylaws and GOP, I am assuming that this is a decision that the Council
> should make for Cartagena.  I want to state right up front that I am
> comfortable with whatever is decided and will fully cooperate to make it
> happen.
> Following is some information that may be helpful.
> As far as I can tell the only direction that may be even indirectly
> applicable in  the Bylaws from Article X is this:
> ·       “. . . the regular term of each GNSO Council member shall begin at
> the conclusion of an ICANN annual meeting and shall end at the conclusion of
> the second ICANN annual meeting thereafter” (paragraph 2)
> ·       “The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair for a term the GNSO
> Council specifies, but not longer than one year.” (paragraph 7)
> ·       “The procedures for selecting the Chair and any other officers are
> contained in the GNSO Operating Procedures. In the event that the GNSO
> Council has not elected a GNSO 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.” (paragraph 7)
> Assuming that the procedures will be fixed in the next few months, I
> believe our only concern at this time is what we should do in Cartagena.  Focusing
> on the round of voting that is now underway, we have several scenarios
> that are possible (see GOP Section 2.2):
> 1.      If at least 60% of each house selects ‘none of the above’, then
> each house initiates a new nomination period and a new election will be
> held no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote.
> 2.      If both Olga and Stéphane receive the same total percentage of
> votes from both houses or if one of them a higher total percentage than
> the other but ties with ‘none of the above’, a second election will be
> held no sooner than 30 days with the candidates remaining the same.
> 3.      If either Olga or Stéphane is elected chair in the first round of
> voting (i.e., receives at least 60% support from each house), we will have
> elected a new chair prior to the Cartagena meeting.
> 4.      If neither candidate receives 60% support from both houses and one
> of them receives a higher score than the other (score = % of votes in CPH
> + % of votes in the NCPH), a second round of voting will be held between
> the one with the highest score and ‘none of the above’:
> a.      If the remaining candidate receives 60% support from both houses,
> we have a successful election.
> b.      If the remaining candidate does not reach the 60% threshold of
> each house, then each house initiates a new nomination period and a new
> election will be held no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote.
> In scenarios 1, 2 and 4.b, we will not know who the new chair is in
> Cartagena and the vice chairs will assume the leadership of the Council
> until such time as we have a new chair.  But note that the new vice chairs
> cannot take over their vice chair roles if they are not yet on the Council
> because the vice chairs have to be Councilors.  It looks very much like
> this will actually be the case for the CPH.
> In scenario 3, it would be feasible to transfer the chair position to the
> new chair at whatever point the Council decides.  In scenario 4.a, if the
> second round of voting results in the election of the chair before or in
> Cartagena, it would be possible to transfer the chair position to the new
> chair at whatever point the Council decides after we have a successful
> election; if not, then we will not know who the new chair is in Cartagena.
> I think it is best for me to stay on the sidelines on this issue except
> for trying to help from a procedural point of view.  But I would like to
> ask Olga and Stéphane to propose a way forward on this for Council
> consideration and want to strongly encourage them to not worry the least
> about my feelings.  Like I said above, I am comfortable with whatever is
> decided as long as we have a defined plan that complies with the Bylaws
> and provides a smooth transition.
> Olga & Stéphane – Are willing to work together to do this and submit a
> proposed plan to the Council for consideration?
> Chuck
>  As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the
> University of New Hampshire and is now known as the *University of New
> Hampshire School of Law.* Please note that all email addresses have
> changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. For
> more information on the *University of New Hampshire School of Law*, please
> visit *law.unh.edu*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20101128/13956324/attachment.html>

More information about the council mailing list