As all
interested candidates and their supporters are (or should be) aware of the
timelines and procedure, I don't believe the nomination process should be
reopened except for exceptional circumstances. Deciding at the
last moment to solicit support to run is not, in my opinion,
an "exceptional" circumstance.
Regards,
Lucy
Nichols
Bruce, Alick and Fellow Councillors,
I am one of several GNSO Councillors who was
contacted by Tim Ruiz ( of GoDaddy) last Friday - in my case, just an hour
before the nomination period closed. Tim asked if I would nominate
him for Board Seat #14. Because his telephone call to me occurred so close
to the close of nominations, and I was travelling at the time, there was not
time to determine whether or not a second nomination would be a good idea, or
even time to consider whether Tim would be a suitable candidate. I advised him I
would not be able to nominate him on such short notice.
In the meantime, there has been some further
correspondence. I have been contacted again by Tim, and he has contacted Bruce
as to the process for extending nominations. Bruce has advised me
that;
"In terms of
process, the nomination period is closed, but the Council
could decide by
vote to re-open the nomination period if there were
suitable
candidates. A member of Council would need to propose a
motion, and
preferably have obtained some support from other councillors
prior to the
meeting."
I wish to emphasize that it is not my purpose
or intention in sending you this email to set up a challenge to Michael Palage's
candidacy. I am, rather, responding in my capacity as a GNSO Councillor to a
request from a member of the Registrar constituency, and attempting to determine
whether there is interest amongst the Council members to entertain the
possibility of considering another candidate. If there is, perhaps we could have
this discussion during today's teleconference, and decide whether or not we want
to take the necessary steps to re-open the nomination period.
Best regards,
Maureen
Maureen Cubberley
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 9:49
PM
Subject: RE: [council] GNSO Vote for
ICANN Board seat # 14
Hello Alick,
>
> In most other organisations,
when there is only a single
> candidate, when nominations close the
single candidate is
> declared elected unopposed and there is no
vote.
That is not the case for the ICANN Board elections.
From
the bylaws, Article X, section 3, paragraph 6:
http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X
"The
GNSO Council shall make selections to fill Seats 13 and 14 on the
ICANN
Board by written ballot or by action at a meeting; any such
selection must
have affirmative votes comprising a majority of the votes
of all the
members of the GNSO Council. Notification of the GNSO
Council's selections
shall be given by the GNSO Chair in writing to the
ICANN Secretary,
consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) and 12(1)."
The appointment
is for three years.
Council members should ensure that the
candidate meets the selection
criteria for a director, and has support from
the GNSO community.
In terms of process, we can either use an email
vote (to be ratified by
a subsequent Council meeting) or we simply hold a
vote during a Council
meeting. While we could hold a vote in
the meeting on 17 March, some
Council members may feel they need time to
interview the candidate and
discuss the candidate with members of the GNSO
community prior to making
a decision.
> What happens if the
sole candidate does not get a majority of
> the votes?
There are
two options:
(1) we re-open the nomination period, and make an effort to
seek
candidates for the Board.
(2) the sole candidate addresses any
concerns that some Council members
may have had, and the vote is
re-held.
The situation is really no different to that if you have only
one
current candidate for a job. If that candidate does not pass a
job
interview, reference check etc, an organisation would seek
more
candidates.
Regards,
Bruce
Tonkin