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 > > > > > > |