In our ongoing saga of applying the new GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) we have identified another missing ingredient: Neither the Bylaws nor the GOP define the exact terms for Council chair and vice chairs. The Bylaws define the terms for Councilors as beginning and ending at the end of the ICANN Annual General Meeting, but no such clarification is given for the chair and vice chairs. So we have another task for the OSC/GCOT. In the meantime, we have a decision in front of us as to when we should transition to the newly elected chair. With the lack of detail in the Bylaws and GOP, I am assuming that this is a decision that the Council should make for Cartagena. I want to state right up front that I am comfortable with whatever is decided and will fully cooperate to make it happen. Following is some information that may be helpful. As far as I can tell the only direction that may be even indirectly applicable in the Bylaws from Article X is this: * ". . . the regular term of each GNSO Council member shall begin at the conclusion of an ICANN annual meeting and shall end at the conclusion of the second ICANN annual meeting thereafter" (paragraph 2) * "The GNSO Council shall select the GNSO Chair for a term the GNSO Council specifies, but not longer than one year." (paragraph 7) * "The procedures for selecting the Chair and any other officers are contained in the GNSO Operating Procedures. In the event that the GNSO Council has not elected a GNSO 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." (paragraph 7) Assuming that the procedures will be fixed in the next few months, I believe our only concern at this time is what we should do in Cartagena. Focusing on the round of voting that is now underway, we have several scenarios that are possible (see GOP Section 2.2): 1. If at least 60% of each house selects 'none of the above', then each house initiates a new nomination period and a new election will be held no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote. 2. If both Olga and Stéphane receive the same total percentage of votes from both houses or if one of them a higher total percentage than the other but ties with 'none of the above', a second election will be held no sooner than 30 days with the candidates remaining the same. 3. If either Olga or Stéphane is elected chair in the first round of voting (i.e., receives at least 60% support from each house), we will have elected a new chair prior to the Cartagena meeting. 4. If neither candidate receives 60% support from both houses and one of them receives a higher score than the other (score = % of votes in CPH + % of votes in the NCPH), a second round of voting will be held between the one with the highest score and 'none of the above': a. If the remaining candidate receives 60% support from both houses, we have a successful election. b. If the remaining candidate does not reach the 60% threshold of each house, then each house initiates a new nomination period and a new election will be held no sooner than 30 days after the unsuccessful vote. In scenarios 1, 2 and 4.b, we will not know who the new chair is in Cartagena and the vice chairs will assume the leadership of the Council until such time as we have a new chair. But note that the new vice chairs cannot take over their vice chair roles if they are not yet on the Council because the vice chairs have to be Councilors. It looks very much like this will actually be the case for the CPH. In scenario 3, it would be feasible to transfer the chair position to the new chair at whatever point the Council decides. In scenario 4.a, if the second round of voting results in the election of the chair before or in Cartagena, it would be possible to transfer the chair position to the new chair at whatever point the Council decides after we have a successful election; if not, then we will not know who the new chair is in Cartagena. I think it is best for me to stay on the sidelines on this issue except for trying to help from a procedural point of view. But I would like to ask Olga and Stéphane to propose a way forward on this for Council consideration and want to strongly encourage them to not worry the least about my feelings. Like I said above, I am comfortable with whatever is decided as long as we have a defined plan that complies with the Bylaws and provides a smooth transition. Olga & Stéphane - Are willing to work together to do this and submit a proposed plan to the Council for consideration? Chuck