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
I support Bill's interpretation -- for the open slot, I agree anyone who has not yet been allocated to a slot should be eligible for selection. Two rounds of voting, if necessary, sounds appropriate. Thanks Bill for all your hard work here! --Wendy William Drake wrote:
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
Hello,
I'm afraid there are two outstanding issues about the election
I agree with Wendy's comments below. On another note, I am very disappointed that we have been entertaining "re-doing" or "un-doing" the decisions made and hard work performed by a very productive team. To the extent we are now clarifying issues, that's fine. However, it seems unproductive and disingenuous to revisit our team's well thought out and approved decisions. Debbie -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 8:22 AM To: William Drake Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] URGENT AOC RT Voting Clarifications I support Bill's interpretation -- for the open slot, I agree anyone who has not yet been allocated to a slot should be eligible for selection. Two rounds of voting, if necessary, sounds appropriate. Thanks Bill for all your hard work here! --Wendy William Drake wrote: 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
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
considered for the Security and Stability RT 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
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
Hi everyone, My understanding of the process is the same as what Bill outlined in his email. Additionally, I would like to support the Council/GNSO abiding by the process that the DT for this issue has developed and that we approved. It would negate any real meaning of being "GNSO endorsed" if individual SG could separately and thereafter provide additional lists of preferred candidates to Peter and Janis. In any event, there's nothing to stop Peter and Janis (in theory at least) from not picking from the GNSO-endorsed candidate pool and going to the other names, so it's important that the GNSO sticks to its agreed process. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate 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
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> To:"William Drake" <william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Date: 3/9/2010 2:21 PM Subject: RE: [council] URGENT AOC RT Voting Clarifications 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
hi, I agree with my colleagues from NCSG, and I don't see any need for "re-doing". therefore I support Bill's interpretation. Regards Rafik 2010/3/10 Mary Wong <MWong@piercelaw.edu>
Hi everyone,
My understanding of the process is the same as what Bill outlined in his email.
Additionally, I would like to support the Council/GNSO abiding by the process that the DT for this issue has developed and that we approved. It would negate any real meaning of being "GNSO endorsed" if individual SG could separately and thereafter provide additional lists of preferred candidates to Peter and Janis. In any event, there's nothing to stop Peter and Janis (in theory at least) from not picking from the GNSO-endorsed candidate pool and going to the other names, so it's important that the GNSO sticks to its agreed process.
Cheers Mary
*Mary W S Wong* Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate 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
*From: * "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> *To:* "William Drake" < william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch>, "GNSO Council List" < council@gnso.icann.org> *Date: * 3/9/2010 2:21 PM *Subject: * RE: [council] URGENT AOC RT Voting Clarifications
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
participants (6)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
HughesDeb＠usa.redcross.org -
Mary Wong -
Rafik Dammak -
Wendy Seltzer -
William Drake