hi Bill,

thanks for your post.  i think it’s really helpful.

schedule

yep, Glen is proposing we follow pretty much the same series of events this time around.  i think we’d be miles ahead if we could agree to Glen’s proposed structure (we’re still fine, the nomination period she's proposing won’t end until 17-March).  here’s the summary (note the gap between nominations includes Singapore, a good time for conversations w/candidates, no?):

3-March — 17-March:  Nomination period (results announced 19-March)

ICANN Singapore — a good time to interact with candidates — maybe schedule a meeting or two?

28-March — 3-April:  First round of voting (announced 5-April)
6-April — 9-April:  Second round of voting (results announced 10-April)
10-April: Special GNSO Council meeting to confirm the selection
16-April: Bylaws-mandated deadline for the GNSO to notify the Board 

one option we might consider is reducing the elapsed time for rounds of voting so we could squeeze in a third round before the Council meeting.  there’s this “Internet" thing that might help us get that done.  if people are game, Glen and i can come up with a slightly tighter 3-round voting schedule and push it back to you all for approval.

number of candidates

a key puzzler, this.  i couldn’t track down documentation that enforces a “one per SG” rule, so i’m interested in hearing more.  i’d observe that a “one per SG” approach does seem to put us on a course toward deadlock, but the “open-field” approach introduces a dilemma — if an SG puts up more than one candidate, they risk splitting their vote and “losing" to an SG that doesn’t.  my wish for a less time-pressured future is that we figure out a better way, but i’m leaning toward Wolf-Ulrich’s view of one candidate per SG this time around.  mostly because it’s a known thing.  i’d be open to creative “tie-breaking” ideas (see below for one that will probably drive people crazy), otherwise it seems possible to just go through a series of tied votes.  

conversations with candidates

i’m also keen to have conversations take place between the candidates and the constituencies.  don’t care how they’re structured, but would like them to be open too.  Singapore seems like an ideal time to put these together.

Councillor voting

i can only speak for my constituency here, but the way the ISPCP is chartered i’m constrained to vote based on “the interests and views of my constituency."  Bill, your comment about Councillors being fully empowered as electors right from the start raises a topic which goes on the “really interesting, but not enough time to discuss/change this time around” pile for me.  

however one “tie breaking” strategy would be to go through a couple of rounds of voting and, if it’s still deadlocked “release" the Councilors to be independent electors.  that would put pressure on constituencies to be a bit more engaged in their work, as otherwise the job gets handed to Councillors.  

for those of you who know me well, i’m wide open to suggestions/changes.  thoughts?

thanks again Bill.  

mikey


On Mar 7, 2014, at 3:20 AM, William Drake <william.drake@uzh.ch> wrote:

Hi

On Mar 6, 2014, at 6:43 PM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:

It would make sense - if this house had a procedure for nomination, voting and selection as requested in the GNSO procedures 2.4.3.

Ok, just peeked at old mail. Below is what we did last time— 8 to win, NCSG had undirected voting but (correct me if I’m wrong) CSG did not.  First round was 7 votes for Avri and 6 for Bill, second round was 8 for Bill and 5 for Avri as a couple Board appointed NCSG Councilors switched.  I don’t remember for sure whether each SG nominated just one as a bloc or we allowed anyone to nominate anyone who wanted to stand (and then the first round shake it down); haven’t had enough coffee yet.  

A priori, I would favor an open process where anyone can stand and anyone can be voted for by the Councilors.  Candidates would then have to actually reach out equally to all Councilors and persuade them of their views and that they would take the full house’s views into account on the board; the Councilors would be fully empowered to serve as electors and vote for the candidate they think best to represent their constituencies; and the process could be more fluid and less bloc polarized.  Freedom on the supply and demand sides has been the standard is pretty much every other policy network or collaboration I’ve participated in, and it has the added benefit of not requiring the sort of procedural negotiations and deadlocks that can make the GNSO so much fun.   But others’ mileages may vary…

Anyone have a less foggy memory than I about 2011, or thoughts on the relative merits of different models?

Best,

Bill


Begin forwarded message:

From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@icann.org>
Subject: NCPH Voting for Board Seat 14
Date: April 22, 2011 at 4:36:14 PM GMT+2

Dear All,
 
A reminder about the voting timeline and the ballots you will receive on Monday 25 April 2011.
 
Timeline:
.           First round of voting:  open Monday, April 25, close Saturday, April 30 at 11:59 UTC.  Ballot to be sent by the GNSO Secretariat to the Councilors, using the ICANN process which is highly accurate and used for all official votes by the GNSO Council. Any candidate receiving at least 8 votes wins.  Results to be tabulated by the GNSO Secretariat and announced Sunday, May 1st. 
 
.           Second round of voting (if needed): open Monday, May 2, close Friday, May 6 at 11:59 UTC.  Run-off between the two leading candidates from first round.
Either candidate receiving at least 8 votes wins.  Results to be announced Saturday, May 7.
 
.           Third round of voting (if needed): open Monday, May 9, close Friday, May 13 at 11:59 UTC.  Leading candidate from second round vs. "None of the above."
Remaining candidate wins if receives at least 8 votes.
 
 
Ballots:
The ballots will come from tally@icann.org. Please be sure to complete the webform when you vote because there are too many variables with emails that make it difficult to process the ballot. Please let me know within the first 24 hours if you have not received a ballot.
 
 
Please let me know if you will NOT be at the email address this email is sent to for voting purposes or if you need a telephonic vote. If no other email is provided, please be aware that the ballots will be sent individually to each NCPH councilor at the above addresses.
In exceptional cases where a GNSO Council member has no Internet access during the voting period, a voice vote may be registered with the GNSO Secretariat personally during the voting period, before the vote is closed.
 
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
 
Glen
 
Glen de Saint Géry
GNSO Secretariat

_______________________________________________
Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list
Gnso-ncph-leadership@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)