[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [council] Nomination / Voting procedures - DNSO ICANNBoard member
After receiving Tony's and Dennis's comments, I have ammended my motion to
comply with two points:
1) Set up a procedure to handle cases of ties.
2) Assure that we comply with the 50% support rule.
Please see points 7 through 9.
In order to deal with this issue as fast as possible in the teleconference,
I propose that all ammendments be sent at least 24 hours before the
teleconference, and, if not accepted before, be voted on right before the
motion is voted.
-----------------------------------------------
I propose the following motion for our next teleconference:
Resolved that:
1) Any person nominated by a member of the GA and supported by at least
nine other members of the DNSO before october 8th, 1999 will be considered
as candidate for ICANN Board membership by the DNSO.
2) A public comment e-mail address will be opened immediatly. All
nominations a support for nominations should be sent to this address. No
other nominations or shows of support will be considered.
3) A public call for nominations in the GA list and other ICANN lists will
be done as soon as the list is set up.
4) The election will take place between october 8th and october 15th, 1999.
Each member of the Names Council will cast three votes for three different
candidates. Votes must be sent to the Names Council mailing list.
5) After the closing of the voting period, the secretariat of the DNSO will
send to the Names Council a list of the Candidates with the number of votes
received by each one of them. The following candidates will be recognized
as DNSO ICANN Board members:
a) The candidate with the largest number of votes (Board Member "A").
b) If there are candidates from regions different from the region of Board
Member "A", the candidate from another region with the largest number of
votes will also become a DNSO member of the ICANN Board (Board Member "B").
If there are no candidates from other regions, the candidates in second and
third place will become Board Members "B" and "C".
c) If there are candidates from regions different to those of Board Members
"A" and "B", the candidate with the largest number of votes who is not from
those regions will be considered Board member "C". If there are no
candidates from other regions, the candidate with the largest number of
votes (excluding Board members "A" and "B") will become Board Member "C".
6) Board member "A" will serve for three years. Board member "B" will serve
for two years and Board "Member "C" will serve for one year.
7)
a) In case of a tie in any of the first three positions that leaves unclear
who the elected members of the ICANN Board are, the Names Council will hold
a three-day mini-election with the candidates who are in the tie. In case
of a new tie, the mini-election will be repeated up to three times until
the tie is broken. If after three time the tie is not broken, a new full
one-week election will be held for the vacant position(s), excluding those
who have been clearly elected, and including all other original candidates,
except those from regions that are already represented by dully elected
DNSO ICANN Board members.
If the tie occurrs in second position, Board Member "A" will -immediatly
after the main election- be considered as a valid member of the ICANN Board
(unless he has not received support from at least 50% of the Names Council,
see point 8). If the tie takes place in third position, Board members "A"
and "B" will -immedialty after the main election- be considered as members
of the ICANN Board (unless they have not received support from at least 50%
of the Names Council, see point 8)
8) In case one of candidates elected does not receive the vote of a least
50% of the members of the Names Council, the NC will hold a single
three-day YES/NO vote to see if this candidate receives the affirmative
support of at least 50% of the Names Council. If he does not receive it, he
will be eliminated from the list of candidates and the post-voting
procedure (points 5, 6, 7 and 8) will be repeated, excluding the name of
this candidate. Of course candidates who have received, in the main
election, a 50% affirmative support, will -immedialty after the main
election- be considered members of the ICANN Board, as they will also be
elected under the new tally.
9) In case the election process does not yield three valid candidates, a
new election will be held for the vacant positions, including a two-week
nomination period and a one-week voting period.
9) The Names Council will send to the ICANN Board the names of its elected
representatives as soon as their names are known. In case of a tie or a
vote of support, the Names Council will send to the Board the names of the
clearly elected representatives, and communicate when it believes the other
names will be available.
Javier
At 08:07 9/09/99 +0100, Nigel Roberts wrote:
>Well, since Dennis has a task force set up to examine this, I would
>suggest
>input is sent to that task force and that a report is done, circulated
>14 days in advance of the LA meeting and a decision taken on its
>contents.
>
>But while we are on the subject, the ICANN bylaws require the following:
>
>1. 3 candidates to be elected
>2. the electorate is the members of the Names Counci
>3 each successful candidate have
> "over 50% of the affirmative votes of the NC members".
>
>
>I personally also favour something like Javier's plan.
>
>There are well researched voting systems around the world which fulfil
>the
>all the above criteria, i.e. whereby each successful candidate has
>"over 50%
>of affirmative votes" (direct quote from ICANN bylaws) and
>preferential voting, as Javier is suggesting in his email.
>
>Now I would suggest that, to avoid any criticism that we are again
>doing the work of properly appointed sub-groups, I might
>suggest that if you agree (or disagree) with Javier's points you send
>your input direct to Dennis as the co-ordinator of the Board Elections
>task force (which I also volunteered to be a member of).
>
>
>
>Nigel
>
>Javier wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >The next question is who can vote, and how many votes can they have - ie:
> > >FICPI is only one member out of 12 in the IPC, but FICPI has over 4,500
> > >individual members. Similarly, if all the individual members of the other
> > >IPC organizations are taken into account, then there are well over 40,000
> > >members in the IPC. Maybe, we can have a system of voting by
> constituency,
> > >whereby each constituency has 1 vote (i.e. 1 vote which it could cast for
> > >each of the 3 candidates that it supports). In one model that the IPC
> > >used, there were a number of points allocated to the three votes to
> > >determine the order of preference (1st place - 5 points; 2nd place - 3
> > >points; 3rd place - 1 point).
> >
> > We could simplify this to having each member of the NC vote for 3
> > candidates. Candidates with the largest amount of votes win, except if
> > there is somebody from their region that has more votes.
> >
> > Each constituency would decide if it is up to their representatives to vote
> > or if they want to mandate a given vote. (whatever each constituency
> > decides is not part of the voting procedure).