Re: [council] Nomination / Voting procedures - DNSOICANNBoardmember

[Nigel Roberts <nigel@nic.gg>]

Javier SOLA wrote:
> 
> Nigel,
> 
> I understand that you do not agree with the NC complying with the Board's
> petition to have DNSO ICANN Board members elected by the NC.
> 
No, I do not disagree that the DNSO Board Members should be elected by
the NC
at all. 

The ByLaws prescribe this. 

I look forward to taking part in the selection of the three Board
Members 
(I do not intend to be a candidate, just to dispel any questions of this
nature, by the way!).

>ope that the majority of the Names Council will
> agree with me.

Of course they will, it is in the By-Laws!

It only the haste in which you seem to want to bounce consideration of
this most important issue that I take issue with (many NC members will
want a considered
document to take back to their constituencies to consult with) when we
already decided in Santiago that three of us would work together to
produce proposals
and a report to the NC in good time.

You simply haven't given us the chance to do this yet and seem to want
to do this work yourselves in the NC as a whole.

 
> There was no formal decision to create a committee or WG to deal with this
> issue, three members of the Names Council volunteered to work on the issue.

It is a great pity that minute taking of that meeting ceased at 17.00,
again IIRC since my understanding differs significantly from yours here.

Perhaps the others who were there (including Dennis) can tell me if I am
imagining the fact that Dennis was tasked with this!


> Dennis and Jonathan have made interesting proposal, but we need something
> concrete and we need it now. We cannot wait until is too late to comply
> with the Board's petition.

As a new Council Member, please forward me full details of the deadlines
currently being set by the Board, and the constraints being placed upon
us by them. I am sure these must exist in writing.

However, having said all of the above, I am basically personally in
favour of 
large numbers of the elements in your original proposal. (election by
the NC and preferential voting).

Your revised version seems to move away from that slightly in a
technical election matter but I will deal with in my own submission to
Dennis.

But it is nice to see constructive debate . . 

Kind regards and have a nice evening.



Nigel


> Javier
> 
> At 16:50 11/09/99 +0100, Nigel Roberts wrote:
> >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).
> >