Re: [council] Some Thoughts on the Elections Process

[Amadeu Abril i Abril <Amadeu@nominalia.com>]

Dennis Jennings wrote:
> 
[...]
> The Election of ICANN Board Directors by the Names Council.
> 
> Boundary Conditions:
> 
> 1  Nominations by the DNSO General Assembly.
> 2  The electorate is the members of the Names Council.
> 3  Three candidates to be elected.
> 4  Each successful candidate to have "over 50% of the affirmative votes
> of the NC members".
> 6  "...no more than one-half (1/2) of the total number of Directors, in the
> aggregate, serving at any given time pursuant to selection by the
> Supporting Organisations shall be citizens of countries located in any
> one Geographic Region."
> 
> 1  Nominations by the DNSO General Assembly
> 
> This is the simplest Condition.  Some simple mechanism needs to be
> found to allow people to nominate.  Probably we need a seconding and
> support statement mechanism.  The suggestion that the person needs
> the formal support of 10 other people is fine (but does not really add very
> much).  I presume that we will have a substantial (4 weeks?) nomination
> period.

Dennis,

The nomination process "should have been started" by now. I fail to
understand why this is not the case.

No matter what the election ruyles are, the nomination and the duties
of the elected are pretty clear. So we should ask immediately for
nominations. In Snatiago it seemed to be a consensus on the simplest
way: ten nmebers of the asembly, and need of the acceptance of the
nomijeˇnee. 

We should establish perhaps an electoral committee, but in the
meanwhile nominations can be snet to the Secretariat, who could set up
a special page with the status of the process.

As for the four weeks period. Well, you know the anser: it is not
possible, as we must elect the directors by October 15 (thdone by the
permanent NC). But I sinsit that I fail to undrstnad why we have wated
the three weeks since Santiago and jave prevented the GA form
discussing and sorting out the nominees.
[...]

> Such polls require time (several weeks), and a polling mechanism that
> results in a ranking of the candidates by the Constituency.  If required,
> should such polls be by secret ballot ?
> 

I would prefer open balots voer secret ones. Transparency, Ithink they
call it ;-))

Best regards,

Amadeu, nearlky completing this round of backlogged em-mails....