October 2009 - council - lists.icann.org

Draft GNSO Council minutes 8 October 2009
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 16, 2009

Oct. 16, 2009

Dear Councillors, Attached please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council meeting held on 8 October 2009. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

David Taylor: Statement of Interest
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 16, 2009

Oct. 16, 2009

Forwarded From: Taylor, David Statements of Interest: - Identify the participant¹s current vocation, employer and position. Partner in Lovells LLP international law firm heading up the Lovells Domain Name Practice - Characterise the type of work performed in the answer above. Advising clients in intellectual property and technology issues and in particular the protection of brands online and in respect to domain names; I assist clients with domain name strategy, domain name registrations and domain name recovery on a global basis. Also act as a domain name panelist with WIPO (for the UDRP) the Czech Arbitration Court (for .EU and the UDRP) and Nominet (for .UK). - Identify any financial ownership or senior management/leadership interest in registries, registrars or other firms that are interested parties in ICANN policy or any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement. In particular, disclose if the participant or an affiliate or a client intend or are considering applying for a new TLD. None. Lovells has made no decision regarding whether to pursue a TLD. I am involved in advising clients on new gTLD progress and issues and certain of these clients are considering applying for a new TLD. - Identify any type of commercial interest in ICANN policy development or implementation outcomes. Is the participant representing other parties with these interests? No direct commercial interest in ICANN policy development. - Describe any arrangements or agreements between the participant and any other group, constituency or person(s) regarding the participant¹s selection as a member. I am an individual member of the IPC and member of various other Intellectual Property organisations; INTA, Marques, ECTA and the Society of Computers and Law. No agreement or understanding with any of these groups as to participation or views in connection with the GNSO. ________________________________

1 0

RE: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

I think notifying the SIC was premature. The process calls for the Council to acknowledge and confirm the results. That implies to me a formal action. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> Date: Thu, October 15, 2009 1:22 pm To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, This occurred during the part of the call where I was off line and the call was being chaired by Chuck. when I came back on the cal I asked for clarification of what had been decided. Chuck confirmed in an earlier message that this was the case. I expect it was a consent sort of thing where no one objected, they way the council has made all of it consensus decisions. I would note, that I have informed the SIC of the decision on NCA placement as I indicated I would in my first message on this topic this morning. I believe the decision is made and it is time to move on. a. On 15 Oct 2009, at 20:07, Tim Ruiz wrote: >> the council agreed to a process of unanimous consent on the extended >> 'negotiations' and you did not get unanimous consent. > > When did we do this? Was it a vote, or a respond if you object kind of > thing? > > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses > From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> > Date: Thu, October 15, 2009 11:36 am > To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > Hi, > > The problems are: > > - the request for an extension of time was not madeuntil after the > drawing happened, thus making the request something that happened > after the the decision was made. > > - the council agreed to a process of unanimous consent on the extended > 'negotiations' and you did not get unanimous consent. > > a. > > On 15 Oct 2009, at 18:25, Tim Ruiz wrote: > >> >> The only aspect of the agreed process that was not met is the >> timeline. >> We routinely stretch timelines, even those mandated in bylaws. I >> certainly did not understand the process to mean we had to reach >> unanimity. When do we ever expect that? >> >> The fact of the matter is that three of the four SGs agreed on an >> assignment plan. That plan puts Terry where he prefers and Olga >> seemed >> flexible. It does put Andrei in the seat he would prefer not to have, >> but he is the newest NCA. I don't see that as unreasonable. >> >> >> Tim >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses >> From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> >> Date: Thu, October 15, 2009 10:57 am >> To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> >> Cc: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >> >> >> Hi Stéphane, >> >> The agreed process has played out and there's not much to be gained >> by >> challenging each other's preferences, or the value of consensus >> processes. However, I would simply like to understand FMI what you're >> saying here. May I pose four questions, please: >> >> On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: >> >>> This means that, despite the overall support of the SGs for a >>> solution which >>> was also inline with what the NCAs wanted themselves, we opt for the >>> solution that suits only one SG. Hardly seems fair. >>> >>> I really think we should try and honour the NCAs' wishes if we can, >>> and the >>> proposed option 1 did that. >> >> First, the NCA's wishes, as recounted by Avri on Sept. 29, were as >> follows: >> >>> >>> Olga and Andrey were both interested in the Contracted Parties House >>> >>> All three of them were willing to be placed in the Non-Contracted >>> parties house. >>> Terry indicated he was only willing to be placed the Non-contracted >>> parties house >>> >>> Olga was the only one indicating willingness to take the Independent >>> non voting role >> >> So Olga was willing to take any of the three, and made clear on the >> last council call that she'd be perfectly happy with non-contracted. >> And under the RySG option 1, Andrei was to be given the non-voting >> seat, which he clearly did not want. So on what basis can it be said >> that RySG option 1 was uniquely in line with the NCAs' wishes? >> >> Second, if satisfying the NCAs was your overarching concern (and >> again, your preferred solution did not in fact do this), then why did >> the RrSG wait from Sept. 29 to Oct. 14 to express a preference? You >> had two full weeks to take a stand for that principle, but said >> nothing until after NCSG stated the horridly unjust view that we >> should do what we agreed to do. >> >> Third, since you're running for chair, I'd much appreciate it if you >> could share your views on whether, as a general matter, the council >> is >> obliged to abide by the rules and procedures it agrees for itself. >> Are these binding, or can they be tossed aside or worked around (e.g. >> through external lobbying) whenever they prove inconvenient to >> someone? >> >> Fourth, in terms of substantive outcomes, do you feel it would have >> been much better signaling to the ICANN community and the larger >> world >> if all three candidates for chair had been from the contracted house? >> >> Sorry to be slow, I'm just trying to understand your thinking. >> >> Thanks much, >> >> Bill >> >> >> > >

2 1

GNSO Seoul schedule
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

Dear All, Attached is the draft proposed GNSO related schedule for the ICANN meetings in Seoul which should be read together with the full ICANN Schedule http://sel.icann.org/full-sched Rooms and times are subject to change. Hope this helps! Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

RE: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

> the council agreed to a process of unanimous consent on the extended > 'negotiations' and you did not get unanimous consent. When did we do this? Was it a vote, or a respond if you object kind of thing? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> Date: Thu, October 15, 2009 11:36 am To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi, The problems are: - the request for an extension of time was not madeuntil after the drawing happened, thus making the request something that happened after the the decision was made. - the council agreed to a process of unanimous consent on the extended 'negotiations' and you did not get unanimous consent. a. On 15 Oct 2009, at 18:25, Tim Ruiz wrote: > > The only aspect of the agreed process that was not met is the > timeline. > We routinely stretch timelines, even those mandated in bylaws. I > certainly did not understand the process to mean we had to reach > unanimity. When do we ever expect that? > > The fact of the matter is that three of the four SGs agreed on an > assignment plan. That plan puts Terry where he prefers and Olga seemed > flexible. It does put Andrei in the seat he would prefer not to have, > but he is the newest NCA. I don't see that as unreasonable. > > > Tim > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses > From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> > Date: Thu, October 15, 2009 10:57 am > To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > Cc: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > Hi Stéphane, > > The agreed process has played out and there's not much to be gained by > challenging each other's preferences, or the value of consensus > processes. However, I would simply like to understand FMI what you're > saying here. May I pose four questions, please: > > On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: > >> This means that, despite the overall support of the SGs for a >> solution which >> was also inline with what the NCAs wanted themselves, we opt for the >> solution that suits only one SG. Hardly seems fair. >> >> I really think we should try and honour the NCAs' wishes if we can, >> and the >> proposed option 1 did that. > > First, the NCA's wishes, as recounted by Avri on Sept. 29, were as > follows: > >> >> Olga and Andrey were both interested in the Contracted Parties House >> >> All three of them were willing to be placed in the Non-Contracted >> parties house. >> Terry indicated he was only willing to be placed the Non-contracted >> parties house >> >> Olga was the only one indicating willingness to take the Independent >> non voting role > > So Olga was willing to take any of the three, and made clear on the > last council call that she'd be perfectly happy with non-contracted. > And under the RySG option 1, Andrei was to be given the non-voting > seat, which he clearly did not want. So on what basis can it be said > that RySG option 1 was uniquely in line with the NCAs' wishes? > > Second, if satisfying the NCAs was your overarching concern (and > again, your preferred solution did not in fact do this), then why did > the RrSG wait from Sept. 29 to Oct. 14 to express a preference? You > had two full weeks to take a stand for that principle, but said > nothing until after NCSG stated the horridly unjust view that we > should do what we agreed to do. > > Third, since you're running for chair, I'd much appreciate it if you > could share your views on whether, as a general matter, the council is > obliged to abide by the rules and procedures it agrees for itself. > Are these binding, or can they be tossed aside or worked around (e.g. > through external lobbying) whenever they prove inconvenient to > someone? > > Fourth, in terms of substantive outcomes, do you feel it would have > been much better signaling to the ICANN community and the larger world > if all three candidates for chair had been from the contracted house? > > Sorry to be slow, I'm just trying to understand your thinking. > > Thanks much, > > Bill > > >

2 1

RE: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

Kristina, Are you otherwise okay with the paper ballot process Avri describes? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Thu, October 15, 2009 10:59 am To: "Avri Doria" <avri(a)acm.org>, "Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> How is this different? I don't recall that we took a vote to use email balloting each time that we did so. The fact that we are voting on persons - not policies - makes it even more important that Councilors have the opportunity to cast their votes privately. I disagree with your suggestion. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 11:51 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate Hi, I think this is somewhat different. I would like to propose a solution that relies on our normal process of taking a vote anytime we decide to make something secret. So I would like to suggest that we take a vote on making the ballot a secret ballot. We can do this after having voted on the Council Procedures and before stating the discussions on the election. By those, as of yet not approved procedures, this would require a majority vote of each house of those present. In the meantime we will also ask staff to prepare paper ballots to be used if secret balloting prevailed. Different ballots (different color paper) for each of the houses. ballot for the first ballot: Name of Candidate from CP House Name of Candidate from NCP House None of the above ballot for the 2nd round* Candidate who had greatest total percentage in the first round (don't need name) None of the above - Those who are absent could send their votes to a trusted staff person (or other trusted attendee - e.g. we could ask the Nomcom chair to act in this capacity) who would transfer them to ballots and put them in the ballot box with the others. Would this work for people? a. * in the odd even that we have an equal total percentage for each candidate, we should postpone the second round until each candidate has had a chance to discuss their positions further with the council and then another round would be identical to the first round. On 15 Oct 2009, at 16:46, Rosette, Kristina wrote: > Given that we have always taken the position that a vote can be a > roll call vote (as opposed to one by acclamation) on the request of > one Councilor, my request for a secret ballot should be sufficient. > > If it's not secret, I will not vote. Period. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner- > council(a)gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:56 AM > To: Council GNSO > Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 > Each House determines a Candidate > > > Hi, > > Don't know. Worth checking. Though the system may have to be > reworked for the bi-cameral nature of the vote. > > We can certainly do paper ballots where one indicates not only their > vote but their House. > > Do other council members believe this needs to be a secret ballot? > > a. > > On 15 Oct 2009, at 15:46, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > >> Is there any reason why we couldn't hold a live email election? I >> don't know the limitations of the election software. >> >> Chuck >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >>> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina >>> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 7:25 AM >>> To: avri(a)psg.com; council(a)gnso.icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 >>> Each House determines a Candidate >>> >>> >>> To my recollection, none of our previous elections while I have been >>> on Council have been public. I thought I'd missed the rationale for >>> holding it publicly. I've gone back and reviewed the messages I >>> could find, but haven't seen one. I had thought we would be voting >>> privately in the week beforehand with the results announced at the >>> meeting. >>> >>> I object to our having to hold the election as a roll call vote. I >>> believe all Councilors should be permitted to cast votes privately. >>> Casting open ballots will not be conducive to the improved working >>> relationship that many of us have articulated a desire to develop. >>> Moreover, given that I have found the environment at ICANN meetings >>> generally (including public Council meetings) to be hostile, I >>> believe casting those votes publicly is more likely than not to >>> exacerbate that problem. >>> >>> In sum, I want to vote privately as we've done in the past and have >>> the results announced at the Council meeting. Doing so has the >>> extra >>> benefit of having a definitive result at the Council meeting >>> (assuming there is a clear winner); no delay from absentee balloting >>> will occur. >>> >>> K >>> >>> >>> Kristina Rosette >>> Covington & Burling LLP >>> 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. >>> Washington, DC 20004-2401 >>> voice: 202-662-5173 >>> direct fax: 202-778-5173 >>> main fax: 202-662-6291 >>> e-mail: krosette(a)cov.com >>> >>> This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is >>> confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended >>> recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that >>> this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete >>> this e-mail from your system. >>> Thank you for your cooperation. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------- >>> Sent from my Wireless Handheld >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> >>> To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >>> Sent: Thu Oct 15 03:23:01 2009 >>> Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 >>> Each House determines a Candidate >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I wanted to ad a few more details to this part of the process. >>> >>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 08:01, Glen de Saint Géry wrote: >>> >>>> B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING >>>> >>>> For this election, the voting will take place at the public Council >>>> meeting in Seoul on Wednesday, 28 October 2009. >>>> >>>> Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as >>> non-voting chair >>>> of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time as a >>>> new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume the >>>> chair responsibilities. >>>> >>>> If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's election, >>>> this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 October. If no >>>> chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on >>> 30 October, >>>> the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as >>> defined in >>>> the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as determined in >>> the Council >>>> Procedures. >>>> >>>> The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house. >>>> >>>> The Council shall inform the Board and the Community >>> appropriately and >>>> post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 >>> business days >>>> following the election. >>>> >>>> In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council >>>> 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. >>> >>> Since this election will be done in the meeting, I am planning to >>> hold it as an open vote via a roll call. This will be the second >>> major item on the agenda, after a vote on any amendments to the >>> proposed Operating Procedures the new Operating Procedures as >>> possibly amended. >>> >>> I am hoping that all of the council members will be available for >>> the >>> vote, either in person or via remote communications, so that the >>> election can be completed on the Wednesday, even if it needs to go >>> to >>> two rounds. If we do not have everyone available for the call, then >>> we will need to go a 24 hour absentee ballot on each round. This >>> means that the first round would not end until Thursday morning. If >>> necessary we could schedule a second round for Thursday, though we >>> would then need to allow for voting at the Thursday meeting, which >>> would be an exception to our normal practice. In this case a second >>> absentee ballot would end on Friday afternoon. In any case, the >>> goal >>> is to enable the election of the new chair, if at all possible, by >>> the end of the Seoul meeting. >>> >>> As I said, I am hoping we can avoid needing to do an absentee ballot >>> so I hope that any council member who cannot attend the meeting can >>> participate remote in al least the first part of the Wednesday >>> meeting. >>> >>> Assuming we have a different candidate from each House, each council >>> member polled would in turn be able to vote for: >>> >>> Candidate chosen by Contracted Parties House (CP House or, Candidate >>> chosen by Non Contracted Parties House (NCP House) or, None of the >>> above >>> >>> (In the case of a single candidate chosen by both Houses, the vote >>> would resemble the second round procedure below) >>> >>> The votes would be tabulated separately according to House, though >>> the roll will be called alphabetically. >>> >>> To succeed a candidate needs 60% or each house. This means 5 out >>> of >>> 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House. >>> >>> - If either the CP House candidate or NCP House candidate get 60% >>> of each House, he or she will have been elected and will take over >>> as >>> chair of the meeting at that point. >>> >>> - If 'None of the above' gets 60% of each house, then the election >>> is >>> halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two >>> vice- >>> chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week. >>> >>> - If neither of the candidates (or "none of the above") gets the >>> required 60% of each house, then a second round is called for. >>> >>> Assuming every one is present on Wednesday morning, we can hold this >>> second round vote immediately, otherwise we can hold it on Thursday. >>> >>> The second roll call vote will be between: >>> >>> The candidate who received the greatest combined percentage of the >>> votes when the results of each house is summed to the other >>> (Percentage from CP House + Percentage from NCP House) or, None of >>> the above >>> >>> If the candidate receives 60% votes of each House ( out of 7 votes >>> for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP >>> House) then that candidate has been elected and will take over as >>> chair of the meeting at that point. >>> >>> Otherwise, the election then the election is halted and rescheduled >>> for a month later. In this case the two vice-chairs will take over >>> as interim co-chairs at the end of the week. >>> >>> I believe this process follows from the rules set for the election >>> of >>> chairs in the new bi-cameral council. I very much look forward to >>> completing a successful election on Wednesday morning. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> >>> >>> a. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > >

2 1

RE: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
by Tim Ruiz Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

The only aspect of the agreed process that was not met is the timeline. We routinely stretch timelines, even those mandated in bylaws. I certainly did not understand the process to mean we had to reach unanimity. When do we ever expect that? The fact of the matter is that three of the four SGs agreed on an assignment plan. That plan puts Terry where he prefers and Olga seemed flexible. It does put Andrei in the seat he would prefer not to have, but he is the newest NCA. I don't see that as unreasonable. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> Date: Thu, October 15, 2009 10:57 am To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> Cc: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Hi Stéphane, The agreed process has played out and there's not much to be gained by challenging each other's preferences, or the value of consensus processes. However, I would simply like to understand FMI what you're saying here. May I pose four questions, please: On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote: > This means that, despite the overall support of the SGs for a > solution which > was also inline with what the NCAs wanted themselves, we opt for the > solution that suits only one SG. Hardly seems fair. > > I really think we should try and honour the NCAs' wishes if we can, > and the > proposed option 1 did that. First, the NCA's wishes, as recounted by Avri on Sept. 29, were as follows: > > Olga and Andrey were both interested in the Contracted Parties House > > All three of them were willing to be placed in the Non-Contracted > parties house. > Terry indicated he was only willing to be placed the Non-contracted > parties house > > Olga was the only one indicating willingness to take the Independent > non voting role So Olga was willing to take any of the three, and made clear on the last council call that she'd be perfectly happy with non-contracted. And under the RySG option 1, Andrei was to be given the non-voting seat, which he clearly did not want. So on what basis can it be said that RySG option 1 was uniquely in line with the NCAs' wishes? Second, if satisfying the NCAs was your overarching concern (and again, your preferred solution did not in fact do this), then why did the RrSG wait from Sept. 29 to Oct. 14 to express a preference? You had two full weeks to take a stand for that principle, but said nothing until after NCSG stated the horridly unjust view that we should do what we agreed to do. Third, since you're running for chair, I'd much appreciate it if you could share your views on whether, as a general matter, the council is obliged to abide by the rules and procedures it agrees for itself. Are these binding, or can they be tossed aside or worked around (e.g. through external lobbying) whenever they prove inconvenient to someone? Fourth, in terms of substantive outcomes, do you feel it would have been much better signaling to the ICANN community and the larger world if all three candidates for chair had been from the contracted house? Sorry to be slow, I'm just trying to understand your thinking. Thanks much, Bill

2 1

Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

Dear Councillors, Council wide nominations are closed. http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-12oct09.htm There are 3 candidates who have been duly nominated, seconded and submitted candidacy statements: Olga Cavalli http://gnso.icann.org/elections/cavalli-statement-12oct09.htm Stéphane van Gelder http://gnso.icann.org/elections/van-gelder-statement-14oct09.htm Chuck Gomes http://gnso.icann.org/elections/gomes-statement-14oct09.htm We have now reached the Part 2 where each House determines a Candidate. This process closes on Wednesday, 21 October at 23:00 UTC and the result should be announced and sent to the council mailing list and <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> by Wednesday 21 October 2009 at 23:00 UTC. Part 2 _Each House determines a Candidate_ After council wide nominations are closed, each house will be allowed to select one candidate for GNSO Council Chair from the pool of nominees. A candidate for GNSO Council Chair does not need to be a member of the house selecting the candidate. Should the non voting NCA be elected as chair he/she would be a non-voting chair. Each house must announce their chosen candidate by 21 October 2009 at 23 UTC. The two houses may, separately, select the same candidate from the nominee pool if they so wish. The candidates from each of the houses shall have the opportunity of meeting with Council Members at the GNSO Working Group sessions in Seoul on Saturday morning, 24 October 2009. (Proposed agenda: https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?agenda_24_oct_2009) B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING For this election, the voting will take place at the public Council meeting in Seoul on Wednesday, 28 October 2009. Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as non-voting chair of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time as a new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume the chair responsibilities. If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's election, this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 October. If no chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on 30 October, the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as defined in the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as determined in the Council Procedures. The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house. The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business days following the election. In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council 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. (Note: The Election of Vice chairs is house specific and will be defined elsewhere) Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 3

FW: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 Each House determines a Candidate
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

Forwarded From: Avri Doria Hi, We have had a few open votes for chair held in meetings during my tenure on the council, but you are right none have been held that way recently. And all of the elections for vice-chair have been held openly in meetings. One problem we have is that the new council is not seated until Wednesday 28 October, and the old council (us) is not empowered to vote in this election before then. We had decided as part of the transition plan to hold the election on the Wednesday, and had scheduled a session on the weekend where the candidates would be able to speak as well as a last chance during the meeting themselves.. That to me meant an open vote, which as I say is not completely unheard of in the council. It is, I suppose, possible to come up with schemes for secret ballots within the constraints of seating the new council on Wednesday if this is required by the council members. a. On 15 Oct 2009, at 13:25, Rosette, Kristina wrote: > To my recollection, none of our previous elections while I have been > on Council have been public. I thought I'd missed the rationale for > holding it publicly. I've gone back and reviewed the messages I > could find, but haven't seen one. I had thought we would be voting > privately in the week beforehand with the results announced at the > meeting. > > I object to our having to hold the election as a roll call vote. I > believe all Councilors should be permitted to cast votes privately. > Casting open ballots will not be conducive to the improved working > relationship that many of us have articulated a desire to develop. > Moreover, given that I have found the environment at ICANN meetings > generally (including public Council meetings) to be hostile, I > believe casting those votes publicly is more likely than not to > exacerbate that problem. > > In sum, I want to vote privately as we've done in the past and have > the results announced at the Council meeting. Doing so has the > extra benefit of having a definitive result at the Council meeting > (assuming there is a clear winner); no delay from absentee balloting > will occur. > > K > > > Kristina Rosette > Covington & Burling LLP > 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. > Washington, DC 20004-2401 > voice: 202-662-5173 > direct fax: 202-778-5173 > main fax: 202-662-6291 > e-mail: krosette(a)cov.com > > This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is > confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient, please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that > this message has been inadvertently transmitted to you and delete > this e-mail from your system. Thank you for your cooperation. > > > > > > ------------------------- > Sent from my Wireless Handheld > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> > To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > Sent: Thu Oct 15 03:23:01 2009 > Subject: Re: [council] Council wide Nominations are closed - Part 2 > Each House determines a Candidate > > > Hi, > > I wanted to ad a few more details to this part of the process. > > On 15 Oct 2009, at 08:01, Glen de Saint Géry wrote: > >> B. PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE VOTING >> >> For this election, the voting will take place at the public Council >> meeting in Seoul on Wednesday, 28 October 2009. >> >> Avri Doria, current GNSO Council chair, will serve as non-voting >> chair of the bicameral Council meeting on 28 October until such time >> as a new chair is elected, at which time the new chair will assume >> the chair responsibilities. >> >> If an absentee ballot is required to complete the chair's election, >> this will be a 24 hour ballot scheduled to end on 29 October. If no >> chair has been elected by the end of the Annual meeting on 30 >> October, the vice-chairs will assume the chair responsibilities as >> defined in the Bylaws and a runoff will be scheduled as determined >> in the Council Procedures. >> >> The winning candidate needs 60% of the votes of each house. >> >> The Council shall inform the Board and the Community appropriately >> and post the election results on the GNSO website within 2 business >> days following the election. >> >> In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO Council >> 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. > > Since this election will be done in the meeting, I am planning to hold > it as an open vote via a roll call. This will be the second major > item on the agenda, after a vote on any amendments to the proposed > Operating Procedures the new Operating Procedures as possibly amended. > > I am hoping that all of the council members will be available for the > vote, either in person or via remote communications, so that the > election can be completed on the Wednesday, even if it needs to go to > two rounds. If we do not have everyone available for the call, then > we will need to go a 24 hour absentee ballot on each round. This > means that the first round would not end until Thursday morning. If > necessary we could schedule a second round for Thursday, though we > would then need to allow for voting at the Thursday meeting, which > would be an exception to our normal practice. In this case a second > absentee ballot would end on Friday afternoon. In any case, the goal > is to enable the election of the new chair, if at all possible, by the > end of the Seoul meeting. > > As I said, I am hoping we can avoid needing to do an absentee ballot > so I hope that any council member who cannot attend the meeting can > participate remote in al least the first part of the Wednesday > meeting. > > Assuming we have a different candidate from each House, each council > member polled would in turn be able to vote for: > > Candidate chosen by Contracted Parties House (CP House > or, Candidate chosen by Non Contracted Parties House (NCP House) > or, None of the above > > (In the case of a single candidate chosen by both Houses, the vote > would resemble the second round procedure below) > > The votes would be tabulated separately according to House, though the > roll will be called alphabetically. > > To succeed a candidate needs 60% or each house. This means 5 out of > 7 votes for the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House. > > - If either the CP House candidate or NCP House candidate get 60% > of each House, he or she will have been elected and will take over as > chair of the meeting at that point. > > - If 'None of the above' gets 60% of each house, then the election is > halted and rescheduled for a month later. In this case the two vice- > chairs will take over as interim co-chairs at the end of the week. > > - If neither of the candidates (or "none of the above") gets the > required 60% of each house, then a second round is called for. > > Assuming every one is present on Wednesday morning, we can hold this > second round vote immediately, otherwise we can hold it on Thursday. > > The second roll call vote will be between: > > The candidate who received the greatest combined percentage of the > votes when the results of each house is summed to the other > (Percentage from CP House + Percentage from NCP House) > or, None of the above > > If the candidate receives 60% votes of each House ( out of 7 votes for > the CP House and 8 out of 13 votes for the NCP House) then that > candidate has been elected and will take over as chair of the meeting > at that point. > > Otherwise, the election then the election is halted and rescheduled > for a month later. In this case the two vice-chairs will take over as > interim co-chairs at the end of the week. > > I believe this process follows from the rules set for the election of > chairs in the new bi-cameral council. I very much look forward to > completing a successful election on Wednesday morning. > > Thanks, > > > > a. > > >

1 0

Chair nomination - Chuck Gomes accepts
by Glen de Saint Géry Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

Dear Councillors, Jordi Iparraguirre, a gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group Council member, has duly nominated Chuck Gomes for the position of Council chair. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07615.html Stéphane van Gelder, a Registrar Stakeholder Group Council member, has duly seconded the nomination. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07620.html Chuck Gomes has accepted the nomination and has submitted a candidacy statement in writing to the Council that is also posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/elections/index.html where the three other candidates statements are posted. Thank you, Kind regards. Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

3 2