Strictly from a personal point of view: * I favor an open ballot for accountability and transparency reasons, but I also respect the concerns of individual Councilors. * If just one Councilor requests a secret ballot, I then am fine with a secret ballot with at least one caveat that the votes of each SG's reps be communicated to the SG. * If am fine with Avri's suggestion to poll the Council regarding whether to hold a secret or open ballot. I have raised this issue on the RySG list and am waiting their direction. In the end I will respond to the poll in accordance with that direction and not my personal views. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong@piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584