I prefer b as well but time permitting would be willing to go another round if it appears that it might produce better results.
The RySG finished its work on this today: 1) We endorsed one candidate for the RySG slot; 2) we endorsed one candidate for the unaffiliated slot; 3) out of the remaining candidates, we identified the ones that
our Councilors could support in any votes for the fully open slot. I believe that our Councilors then will have all the information they need to participate in the voting process. It is difficult to plan a process for this until we see the ET
recommendations so I think we will have to decide on that at the beginning of the meeting. Of course, the ET is welcome to recommend a process in addition to making recommendations regarding candidates for the two open slots.
Chuck > -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 7:45 AM
> To: GNSO Council List
> Subject: [council] URGENT AOC RT Voting Clarifications
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm afraid there are two outstanding issues about the
> election process, sigh...
>
> I. Pool Subject to Voting
>
> Since a) the council will be having an open meeting tomorrow
> in which we may need to explain details of the process, b) I
> am told that some members of other SGs gathered here in
> Nairobi have concerns about possible RT election scenarios,
> and c) Tim has raised concerns about the process winnowing
> the pool, I want to make sure everyone is on the same page on
> a key point regarding the house election for the 5th and 6th
> RT pool slots. Wolf raised this with me the other day as well.
>
> Based on discussions in the drafting team, some weeks ago
> Chuck notified SG chairs that they could endorse up to two
> candidates for the "open" (not the "unaffiliated") slot that
> is subject to election by the House (actually I think the
> initial bracketed language he used was two "alternates").
> Nobody ever objected so we let that stand as a limitation.
> Alas, during the frenzied Council call when we adopted the
> motion minutes after finding out the revised dates for the
> process, we were focused on other issues and didn't manage to
> discuss and draw it into the process document that was the
> subject of the motion. One could argue then that since the
> Council didn't formally specify and approve this element, we
> can interpret it however we want without doing any violence
> to the agreed process.
>
> I can see two ways to interpret what we agreed:
>
> 1. SG endorsements of up to two candidate for the open
> elected slot simply signals SG support for two out of the
> list of competitors. So, for example (the precise number is
> pending agreement within the ET) it appears that there may be
> five candidates that are affiliated with the CSG. The CSG
> endorses (i.e. says "we favor") two, which the houses may
> wish to take into account in voting, but the other three
> remain in the pool that will be voted on.
>
> 2. Instead, SG endorsements of up to two candidate for the
> open elected slot means that they select only those two to
> stand for election, and the others fall out and are not on
> the ballot.
>
> By my personal not-ratified-by-the-ET count, the twelve
> candidates should be classified as follows:
>
> 1 person who will be held out of the pool as his first choice
> is to be considered for the Security and Stability RT
> 1 RgySG person
> 1 RgrSG person
> 5 CSG persons
> 2 NCSG persons
> 2 independent/unaffiliated persons
>
> Without prejudging the decisions they will make, I would
> guess that the RgySG and RgrSG would choose the people
> affiliated with them for the allocated slots, which are not
> subject to the election. NCSG has selected a person for its
> allocated slot. This would mean then that the potential
> competition for the open elected slot is between 4 of the 5
> CSG people (assuming they choose one for the allocated slot)
> and one NCSG person. (Of course the RgySG and RgrSG could
> opt not to put the two into the allocated slots, in which
> case you'd have to add one or two to the pool being voted on).
>
> So: for that election, would the Council like to
>
> 1. Have all five people competing, with CSG's endorsement of
> up to two meaning only that they prefer them, or 2.
> Interpret the endorsement as meaning that only those two can
> stand for election, in which case the pool for the vote would
> be 2 CSG + 1 NCSG?
>
> My preference would be that it be open, option 1. Per Tim,
> this also gives everyone a chance at being elected.
> Moreover, I would add that if we don't view SG endorsements
> of x as taking y out of the pool, there's another option,
> namely that CSG could choose not to endorse any of them, so
> that it doesn't have to make uncomfortable choices among
> colleagues and all get to stand.
>
>
> II. Voting Process
>
> I raised this before with the DT and ET, didn't get a clear
> answer, and there was no further pre-travel discussion. If
> on the voting call no candidates get majorities of both
> houses, we can either a) stop there and say nobody wins that
> slot; b) do a second vote, in which hopefully enough people
> would shift their positions to put someone over the top, and
> if the 2nd doesn't work either, just agree nobody wins; or c)
> keep doing voting rounds until someone wins.
>
> Obviously, a) is the easiest, but b) or c) would be fairer to
> the candidates. I'd personally prefer b).
>
> The same would presumably apply to the vote for the unaffiliated slot.
>
>
> It would be really great to clarify these two items before
> the open meeting. Can we do this by consensus or do we need
> to have a quick motion? Responses would be very much appreciated.
>
> Sorry...i can assure you nobody is more tired of this than I.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
|