May 2006 - council - lists.icann.org

Regarding GAC advice
by Bruce Tonkin May 10, 2006

May 10, 2006

Hello All, The recent cover letter from Paul Twomey to the ICANN available at: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/jeffrey-to-tarmizi-04may06.htm includes the following text: Consistent with the ICANN Bylaws at Article XI, Section 2, Paragraph 2 (j) and (k), the ICANN Board will formally recognize any public policy advice provided by the GAC and if the Board intends to move forward with the agreement, it must first determine whether the board action is consistent with any GAC public policy advice. If such approval of the agreement is determined not to be consistent with the GAC public policy advice than ICANN will be required to inform the GAC and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. The Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution. If no acceptable solution can be found than the ICANN Board will state in its final decision the reasons why the Governmental Advisory Committee advice was not followed, and such statement will be without prejudice to the rights or obligations of Governmental Advisory Committee members with regard to public policy issues falling within their responsibilities. This may help the Council in dealing with GAC advice in future. If the GNSO Council recommends a particular policy that seems to conflict with GAC advice, the GNSO Council can assist the Board in responding to the GAC by providing reasons why the advice was not followed. It would also be useful for the Council to attempt to "find a mutually acceptable solution" prior to submitting a policy to the Board for approval. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Copy of letter to chair of the ICANN Board's Reconsideration Committee
by Bruce Tonkin May 8, 2006

May 8, 2006

To: Vanda Scartezini , Chair of Reconsideration Committee of the ICANN Board From: Bruce Tonkin, Chair of GNSO Council CC: John Jeffrey, ICANN Secretary Dear Vanda, The nomination period for the GNSO election for ICANN Board seat #14 has now closed. The GNSO Secretariat has posted the list of nominations to the Council list, available at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg02460.html One of the candidates, Marilyn Cade, has informed the GNSO Council (see http://www.gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg02428.html) that she has: (1) sought advice regarding her ability to stand as a candidate from the General Counsel, (2) sought a review of this advice from the ICANN Ombudsman, (3) and is now seeking a ruling from the reconsideration committee. The GNSO Council is planning to vote on the nominated candidates by the end of May, and it would be very helpful if the Reconsideration Committee could consider Marilyn Cade's request promptly to determine if Marilyn Cade is eligible to stand for election. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

RE: Board Seat election
by Bruce Tonkin May 7, 2006

May 7, 2006

Hello Tony, I think that it is actually good that we have an impressive group of candidates to consider. I propose the following next steps: (1) I will formally ask the General Counsel to check the eligibility of all the nominated candidates against the various bylaw provisions relating to the selection of Board directors. (2) I will invite each of the candidates to submit a statement of interest consistent with the approach taken recently by the GNSO Council. (3) I am aware that one of the candidates, Marilyn Cade, has: (a) Sought advice from the General Counsel on her eligibility (b) Asked the ombudsman to review her eligibility (c) Has formally submitted a Reconsideration Request to the ICANN Board I am hoping that the reconsideration request can be considered promptly so that the outcome will be known before we need to vote. (4) I will arrange a teleconference for each of the candidates to address the GNSO Council, and also allow Council members to ask the candidates questions. I also suggest constituencies consider offering the opportunity for the candidates to address constituency members. (5) After the steps above are complete, I will arrange a teleconference for an election. We currently have scheduled a Council meeting for 18 May 2006. That might be a good time for step (4) above. I hope we can complete the process by the end of May 2006. I also urge all Council members to keep an open mind regarding the candidates, and take the time to consider further information about the candidates as it emerges through the processes above. Our job is ultimately to choose the candidate that adds the most value to the ICANN Board. Any suggestions regarding improving the process above are welcome. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

4 3

Nomination slate for ICANN Board seat 14
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG May 7, 2006

May 7, 2006

1 0

Voting rules for Board Seat #14
by Bruce Tonkin May 7, 2006

May 7, 2006

Hello Robin, > > I'm a little unclear about how this election for Board Seat > #14 takes place. > > Are there different rounds of voting where some number of > candidates are > dropped? > > Is there somewhere online where I can find the rules for this > election? For some history on what has happened in the past see: http://www.dnso.org/elections/ The basic voting approach is set out at: http://www.dnso.org/elections/2003.GNSO-ICANN-seat14-voting-proc.html It is called "convention style" voting. We have a total of 27 votes in total that can be cast. A candidate needs to get 14 votes to be elected. If after an initial vote, no candidate ges 14 votes, then all candidates getting zero votes, and all candidates receiving the lowest non-zero number of votes are eliminated from subsequent rounds. E.g Below are some examples that demonstrate how the process can be applied. ELIMINATION OF CANDIDATES FROM SUBSEQUENT ROUNDS The specifics of eliminations from subsequent rounds of voting: On the first round, all candidates getting zero votes, and all candidates receiving the lowest non-zero number of votes are eliminated from subsequent rounds. Example first round: Candidate 1 receives 0 votes Candidate 2 receives 2 vote Candidate 3 receives 4 votes Candidate 4 receives 6 vote Candidate 5 receives 8 vote Candidate 6 receives 2 vote Candidate 1 is eliminated because he or she received zero votes. Candidates 2 and 6 are eliminated because they both received two votes, which is the lowest non-zero number. Candidates 3, 4, and 5 appear on the ballot in the next round. On all rounds after the first, all candidates receiving the lowest number of votes are eliminated from subsequent rounds. Example: Candidate 1 receives 2 votes Candidate 2 receives 11 votes Candidate 3 receives 2 votes Candidate 4 receives 9 votes Candidates 1 and 3 are eliminated because they both received two votes, which is the lowest number. Only candidates 2 and 4 appear on the ballot in the next round. In the final round, one candidate must receive a majority of the total number of votes that all members of the GNSO may cast. Example, assuming 24 votes total on GNSO Council: Candidate 1 receives 6 votes Candidate 2 receives 12 votes Candidate 3 receives 6 votes Candidates 1 and 3 are eliminated because they both received six votes, which is the lowest number. Because candidate 2 did not receive thirteen votes (a majority of 24), he or she is not selected in this round. An additional round will be run, with a single candidate, and candidate 2 must receive 13 affirmative votes to be victorious. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

process & rules for Board Seat #14?
by Robin Gross May 7, 2006

May 7, 2006

Bruce, I'm a little unclear about how this election for Board Seat #14 takes place. Are there different rounds of voting where some number of candidates are dropped? Is there somewhere online where I can find the rules for this election? Thank you, Robin

1 0

RE: [council] RE: Board Seat election
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com May 7, 2006

May 7, 2006

Bruce Thanks, this is very helpful. I think clarity over point 3 is essential as this could impact the result. It would not be good if the election took place and then became subject to challenge because one candidate was subsequently ruled 'unelectable' after voting. It is not unreasonable to request that ICANN make all every effort to complete the reconsideration process within the (very reasonable) time line you set out. The timeline for such action as specified within the By-Laws should be viewed as the maximum period allowed, not the norm. Tony -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: 07 May 2006 00:05 To: council(a)gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] RE: Board Seat election Hello Tony, I think that it is actually good that we have an impressive group of candidates to consider. I propose the following next steps: (1) I will formally ask the General Counsel to check the eligibility of all the nominated candidates against the various bylaw provisions relating to the selection of Board directors. (2) I will invite each of the candidates to submit a statement of interest consistent with the approach taken recently by the GNSO Council. (3) I am aware that one of the candidates, Marilyn Cade, has: (a) Sought advice from the General Counsel on her eligibility (b) Asked the ombudsman to review her eligibility (c) Has formally submitted a Reconsideration Request to the ICANN Board I am hoping that the reconsideration request can be considered promptly so that the outcome will be known before we need to vote. (4) I will arrange a teleconference for each of the candidates to address the GNSO Council, and also allow Council members to ask the candidates questions. I also suggest constituencies consider offering the opportunity for the candidates to address constituency members. (5) After the steps above are complete, I will arrange a teleconference for an election. We currently have scheduled a Council meeting for 18 May 2006. That might be a good time for step (4) above. I hope we can complete the process by the end of May 2006. I also urge all Council members to keep an open mind regarding the candidates, and take the time to consider further information about the candidates as it emerges through the processes above. Our job is ultimately to choose the candidate that adds the most value to the ICANN Board. Any suggestions regarding improving the process above are welcome. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

2 1

Date and time of next Council teleconference
by Bruce Tonkin May 7, 2006

May 7, 2006

Hello Norbert, > > We currently have scheduled a Council meeting for 18 May 2006. That > > might be a good time for step (4) above. I hope we can > complete the > > process by the end of May 2006. > > > [snip] > > I tried to look through my files, but could not find if we > have already set a time for this meeting on 18 May. If I > missed to note it down - my apologies. If the hours have not > yet been set - I would appreciate if this could be done soon, > as it helps scheduling, considering other obligations. > The calendar and time of Council meetings is available at: http://www.gnso.icann.org/calendar/ The time of the teleconference on 18 May is: 06:00 LA, 08:00 Washington, 12:00 UTC, 14:00 Brussels, 22:00 Melbourne Regards, Bruce

1 0

Board Seat election
by tony.ar.holmes＠bt.com May 6, 2006

May 6, 2006

Bruce Within the ISPCP, and I'm pretty sure within other constituencies there is a feeling of unease over the current GNSO election process. We now have a slate of nominations, some of which appear to be tactical partly due to the Reconsideration Process that affects Marilyn's ability to stand as a candidate. The way this has occurred is quite unfortunate, although fully understandable. On the plus side the resolution of this issue will add clarity to the process that should benefit all of us in the future. However against that background it seems prudent to ensure that the formal voting process doesn't commence until that situation is clarified. Can you confirm this is the case? If not the overall process appears flawed. Regards Tony

1 0

Nominations for ICANN Board seat 14
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG May 5, 2006

May 5, 2006

1 0