Chair/Vice Chair Terms
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
Thanks Chuck. I'd like to propose an initial suggestion that as each Councillor's term starts at the end of the AGM, it may make sense to link the Council Leaders' terms to that. In this instance, it would mean that you would serve until the end of the Cartagena meeting and then hand over to the Chair or VCs, depending upon the election results. This is just a first step proposal to get us through this upcoming meeting. But I think that going forward, the procedures need to be refined so that there are clear guidelines in place. For example, last year we made the switch to the new Council Leadership team during the Council Open meeting. In some ways that is a good solution because it means that those in the community attending the AGM can put a face behind the names of the new leaders. Bearing in mind that we could have instances when the new Chairs and VCs are also new to the Council, this may be helpful. On the other hand, if they are new, and therefore relatively inexperienced in the way the Council works, they may feel uncomfortable at being "thrown in the deep end" in this way... So it's clear that there are a lot of aspects of these procedures that need to be looked at. It seems like we need to agree on a way forward for Cartagena, and then ask the OSC and the GCOT to work on them in detail so that come next year, these issues do not reappear. Stéphane Le 26 nov. 2010 à 20:24, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
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
Hi, thanks Chuck for a very complete summary of the different scenarios that the new GNSO leaders election may bring. I would be willing to work together with Stéphane in submitting a plan for council consideration as there are several aspects that should be considered and the constructive vision of both houses representatives is relevant. This plan could be used also as input for OSC / GCOT work on this matter. Best regards Olga 2010/11/26 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
Thanks Chuck.
I'd like to propose an initial suggestion that as each Councillor's term starts at the end of the AGM, it may make sense to link the Council Leaders' terms to that.
In this instance, it would mean that you would serve until the end of the Cartagena meeting and then hand over to the Chair or VCs, depending upon the election results.
This is just a first step proposal to get us through this upcoming meeting. But I think that going forward, the procedures need to be refined so that there are clear guidelines in place.
For example, last year we made the switch to the new Council Leadership team during the Council Open meeting. In some ways that is a good solution because it means that those in the community attending the AGM can put a face behind the names of the new leaders. Bearing in mind that we could have instances when the new Chairs and VCs are also new to the Council, this may be helpful. On the other hand, if they are new, and therefore relatively inexperienced in the way the Council works, they may feel uncomfortable at being "thrown in the deep end" in this way...
So it's clear that there are a lot of aspects of these procedures that need to be looked at. It seems like we need to agree on a way forward for Cartagena, and then ask the OSC and the GCOT to work on them in detail so that come next year, these issues do not reappear.
Stéphane
Le 26 nov. 2010 à 20:24, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
In our ongoing saga of applying the new GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP)we have identified another missing ingredient: Neither theBylaws 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
I agree with Stephane's suggestion, for the reason he mentions. It seems to me that one common thread running through the Op Procedures language is the assumption that the Chair and Vice-Chairs should be Council members for at least the duration of their respective terms, so Stephane's suggestion makes a great deal of sense. One other potential wrinkle occurred to me as I was going through the relevant sections, however, although I would add that this is not a scenario that can arise in our current election. The wrinkle is this: the Op Procedures state that if a Chair is NOT elected by the end of an annual meeting, the Vice-Chairs act as interim Chairs until a successful election is held. There's a possibility, however, that at some future election, one or both of the then-Vice-Chairs will themselves have to leave the Council at the end of the same annual meeting where the then-Chair steps down (e.g. due to term limits). In that scenario, would the affected House(s) then have to nominate interim Vice-Chair(s) who would serve as the interim Chair(s)? I ask because the Op Procedures specify that the Chair and Vice-Chairs cannot be from the same Stakeholder Group; thus, it would not be possible to nominate more "permanent" Vice-Chairs - other than interim ones - prior to knowing who the Chair ultimately will be. Another question/issue/topic for the GCOT and OSC, perhaps. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong@law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To:"Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> CC:<council@gnso.icann.org>, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>, <ray@goto.jobs> Date: 11/26/2010 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [council] Chair/Vice Chair Terms Thanks Chuck. I'd like to propose an initial suggestion that as each Councillor's term starts at the end of the AGM, it may make sense to link the Council Leaders' terms to that. In this instance, it would mean that you would serve until the end of the Cartagena meeting and then hand over to the Chair or VCs, depending upon the election results. This is just a first step proposal to get us through this upcoming meeting. But I think that going forward, the procedures need to be refined so that there are clear guidelines in place. For example, last year we made the switch to the new Council Leadership team during the Council Open meeting. In some ways that is a good solution because it means that those in the community attending the AGM can put a face behind the names of the new leaders. Bearing in mind that we could have instances when the new Chairs and VCs are also new to the Council, this may be helpful. On the other hand, if they are new, and therefore relatively inexperienced in the way the Council works, they may feel uncomfortable at being "thrown in the deep end" in this way... So it's clear that there are a lot of aspects of these procedures that need to be looked at. It seems like we need to agree on a way forward for Cartagena, and then ask the OSC and the GCOT to work on them in detail so that come next year, these issues do not reappear. Stéphane Le 26 nov. 2010 à 20:24, Gomes, Chuck a écrit : 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 As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu
Hi, I agree with Stéphane and also with the concerns expressed by Mary. When should the vc candidates be known and elected? This may become a relevant issue if they may act as interim chairs in the case that the chair election is not defined in the first or second voting round. Regards Olga 2010/11/28 Mary Wong <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu>
I agree with Stephane's suggestion, for the reason he mentions. It seems to me that one common thread running through the Op Procedures language is the assumption that the Chair and Vice-Chairs should be Council members for at least the duration of their respective terms, so Stephane's suggestion makes a great deal of sense.
One other potential wrinkle occurred to me as I was going through the relevant sections, however, although I would add that this is not a scenario that can arise in our current election. The wrinkle is this: the Op Procedures state that if a Chair is NOT elected by the end of an annual meeting, the Vice-Chairs act as interim Chairs until a successful election is held. There's a possibility, however, that at some future election, one or both of the then-Vice-Chairs will themselves have to leave the Council at the end of the same annual meeting where the then-Chair steps down (e.g. due to term limits). In that scenario, would the affected House(s) then have to nominate interim Vice-Chair(s) who would serve as the interim Chair(s)?
I ask because the Op Procedures specify that the Chair and Vice-Chairs cannot be from the same Stakeholder Group; thus, it would not be possible to nominate more "permanent" Vice-Chairs - other than interim ones - prior to knowing who the Chair ultimately will be.
Another question/issue/topic for the GCOT and OSC, perhaps.
Cheers Mary
*Mary W S Wong* *Professor of Law* *Chair, Graduate IP Programs* UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> *From: * Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> *To:* "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> *CC:* <council@gnso.icann.org>, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>, <ray@goto.jobs> *Date: * 11/26/2010 7:45 PM *Subject: * Re: [council] Chair/Vice Chair Terms Thanks Chuck.
I'd like to propose an initial suggestion that as each Councillor's term starts at the end of the AGM, it may make sense to link the Council Leaders' terms to that.
In this instance, it would mean that you would serve until the end of the Cartagena meeting and then hand over to the Chair or VCs, depending upon the election results.
This is just a first step proposal to get us through this upcoming meeting. But I think that going forward, the procedures need to be refined so that there are clear guidelines in place.
For example, last year we made the switch to the new Council Leadership team during the Council Open meeting. In some ways that is a good solution because it means that those in the community attending the AGM can put a face behind the names of the new leaders. Bearing in mind that we could have instances when the new Chairs and VCs are also new to the Council, this may be helpful. On the other hand, if they are new, and therefore relatively inexperienced in the way the Council works, they may feel uncomfortable at being "thrown in the deep end" in this way...
So it's clear that there are a lot of aspects of these procedures that need to be looked at. It seems like we need to agree on a way forward for Cartagena, and then ask the OSC and the GCOT to work on them in detail so that come next year, these issues do not reappear.
Stéphane
Le 26 nov. 2010 à 20:24, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
In our ongoing saga of applying the new GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP)we have identified another missing ingredient: Neither theBylaws 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
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the *University of New Hampshire School of Law.* Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu. For more information on the *University of New Hampshire School of Law*, please visit *law.unh.edu*
Thanks Olga. Is it then reasonable to move forwards like this: This time around only. We agree that if a new Chair is elected before the end of the Cartagena meeting, that person will take office after this meeting, it being the AGM. If no Chair is elected, then the house-nominated VCs, be they named interim or permanent, will stand-in after the AGM and until such a time as a new Chair is elected. Until the end of the AGM, the current Chair Chuck Gomes holds that position. Going forward in general. We ask the OSC to look at the procedures again, taking into account the points that have been made by the GNSO Council in our discussions on this. These include comments on: - when Chair and VC terms start and end, - what consideration should be given to interim VCs and how should that status, if accepted, be implemented, - how should current Council leaders term-limits be taken into account when the new leadership comes in. Would this be a good way forward? Stéphane Le 28 nov. 2010 à 19:45, Olga Cavalli a écrit :
Hi, I agree with Stéphane and also with the concerns expressed by Mary. When should the vc candidates be known and elected? This may become a relevant issue if they may act as interim chairs in the case that the chair election is not defined in the first or second voting round. Regards Olga
2010/11/28 Mary Wong <Mary.Wong@law.unh.edu> I agree with Stephane's suggestion, for the reason he mentions. It seems to me that one common thread running through the Op Procedures language is the assumption that the Chair and Vice-Chairs should be Council members for at least the duration of their respective terms, so Stephane's suggestion makes a great deal of sense.
One other potential wrinkle occurred to me as I was going through the relevant sections, however, although I would add that this is not a scenario that can arise in our current election. The wrinkle is this: the Op Procedures state that if a Chair is NOT elected by the end of an annual meeting, the Vice-Chairs act as interim Chairs until a successful election is held. There's a possibility, however, that at some future election, one or both of the then-Vice-Chairs will themselves have to leave the Council at the end of the same annual meeting where the then-Chair steps down (e.g. due to term limits). In that scenario, would the affected House(s) then have to nominate interim Vice-Chair(s) who would serve as the interim Chair(s)?
I ask because the Op Procedures specify that the Chair and Vice-Chairs cannot be from the same Stakeholder Group; thus, it would not be possible to nominate more "permanent" Vice-Chairs - other than interim ones - prior to knowing who the Chair ultimately will be.
Another question/issue/topic for the GCOT and OSC, perhaps.
Cheers Mary
Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> CC: <council@gnso.icann.org>, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>, <ray@goto.jobs> Date: 11/26/2010 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [council] Chair/Vice Chair Terms Thanks Chuck.
I'd like to propose an initial suggestion that as each Councillor's term starts at the end of the AGM, it may make sense to link the Council Leaders' terms to that.
In this instance, it would mean that you would serve until the end of the Cartagena meeting and then hand over to the Chair or VCs, depending upon the election results.
This is just a first step proposal to get us through this upcoming meeting. But I think that going forward, the procedures need to be refined so that there are clear guidelines in place.
For example, last year we made the switch to the new Council Leadership team during the Council Open meeting. In some ways that is a good solution because it means that those in the community attending the AGM can put a face behind the names of the new leaders. Bearing in mind that we could have instances when the new Chairs and VCs are also new to the Council, this may be helpful. On the other hand, if they are new, and therefore relatively inexperienced in the way the Council works, they may feel uncomfortable at being "thrown in the deep end" in this way...
So it's clear that there are a lot of aspects of these procedures that need to be looked at. It seems like we need to agree on a way forward for Cartagena, and then ask the OSC and the GCOT to work on them in detail so that come next year, these issues do not reappear.
Stéphane
Le 26 nov. 2010 à 20:24, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
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
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu
Hi Mary, I believe there's a precedent for the point you raise about interim VCs. Did the NCP house not nominate Olga as interim VC in Korea, and then make that nomination permanent a few weeks later? If that is indeed what happened, I would agree with you that there also needs to be procedures defined for this. I would suggest that there need to be clearly defined time limits for a VC to remain as interim before a house has to nominate a permanent VC (whether it be the same person or someone else). I would also suggest that, as VC nominations are an internal house matter, that there be some kind of requirement for houses to announce when an interim VC is nominated and when a permanent VC is nominated. These are probably obvious points, but they are not in the current procedures... Thanks, Stéphane Le 28 nov. 2010 à 17:00, Mary Wong a écrit :
I agree with Stephane's suggestion, for the reason he mentions. It seems to me that one common thread running through the Op Procedures language is the assumption that the Chair and Vice-Chairs should be Council members for at least the duration of their respective terms, so Stephane's suggestion makes a great deal of sense.
One other potential wrinkle occurred to me as I was going through the relevant sections, however, although I would add that this is not a scenario that can arise in our current election. The wrinkle is this: the Op Procedures state that if a Chair is NOT elected by the end of an annual meeting, the Vice-Chairs act as interim Chairs until a successful election is held. There's a possibility, however, that at some future election, one or both of the then-Vice-Chairs will themselves have to leave the Council at the end of the same annual meeting where the then-Chair steps down (e.g. due to term limits). In that scenario, would the affected House(s) then have to nominate interim Vice-Chair(s) who would serve as the interim Chair(s)?
I ask because the Op Procedures specify that the Chair and Vice-Chairs cannot be from the same Stakeholder Group; thus, it would not be possible to nominate more "permanent" Vice-Chairs - other than interim ones - prior to knowing who the Chair ultimately will be.
Another question/issue/topic for the GCOT and OSC, perhaps.
Cheers Mary
Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mary.wong@law.unh.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
From: Stéphane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder@indom.com> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@verisign.com> CC: <council@gnso.icann.org>, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>, <ray@goto.jobs> Date: 11/26/2010 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [council] Chair/Vice Chair Terms Thanks Chuck.
I'd like to propose an initial suggestion that as each Councillor's term starts at the end of the AGM, it may make sense to link the Council Leaders' terms to that.
In this instance, it would mean that you would serve until the end of the Cartagena meeting and then hand over to the Chair or VCs, depending upon the election results.
This is just a first step proposal to get us through this upcoming meeting. But I think that going forward, the procedures need to be refined so that there are clear guidelines in place.
For example, last year we made the switch to the new Council Leadership team during the Council Open meeting. In some ways that is a good solution because it means that those in the community attending the AGM can put a face behind the names of the new leaders. Bearing in mind that we could have instances when the new Chairs and VCs are also new to the Council, this may be helpful. On the other hand, if they are new, and therefore relatively inexperienced in the way the Council works, they may feel uncomfortable at being "thrown in the deep end" in this way...
So it's clear that there are a lot of aspects of these procedures that need to be looked at. It seems like we need to agree on a way forward for Cartagena, and then ask the OSC and the GCOT to work on them in detail so that come next year, these issues do not reappear.
Stéphane
Le 26 nov. 2010 à 20:24, Gomes, Chuck a écrit :
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
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname@law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu
participants (4)
-
Gomes, Chuck -
Mary Wong -
Olga Cavalli -
Stéphane Van Gelder