Re: [council] Nomination / Voting procedures - DNSO ICANNBoardmember

[Nigel Roberts <nigel@nic.gg>]

I hereby object to the speed at which this is being pushed through. 
There was a Formal Decision to delegate this to Dennis's sub-group.

Give the sub-group a chance do its work and let's not micro-manage. 


Nigel Roberts


Javier wrote:
> 
> 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).