Hi,

> On Jun 2, 2020, at 2:07 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> So the Stakeholder Group can fill the vacancy by any means, including
> an election, if its Charter so provides. And if the SG chooses to
> replace the person filling the vacancy before the term expires, it
> would be rather strange it the second substitute would not get the
> same doesn't-count-in-term-limit treatment as the first.

Yes…, but that isn’t the point. Elections during normal election cycles don’t qualify as filling “vacancies”, irrespective of how long the term may be (one or two years). If elections are used to fill a “vacancy” consistent with a Stakeholder Group charter, that’s fine. The determining factor here would be that a “vacancy” is being filled. Doesn’t matter much how it is filled. Whatever means are used to fill vacancies mid-term have no bearing on the nature or circumstances of the vacancy itself, or the rules governing it.

> 
> And I'm indeed quite sure this has been debated and decided exactly so
> in some earlier case, although I'm not sure if the 5th year actually
> took place.

I can tell you with some certainty that no Councilor has served three terms on Council as a result of being elected in 3 consecutive elections. If there was any chance of this happening, I assure you, ICANN staff (possibly including their legal department) would have been all over us.

We may have had Councilors who’ve served for over 4 years, but only as a result of filling a vacancy. I don’t recall if Klaus Stoll served 5 years or not, but he could have, as his first year was to replace a vacancy created immediately after the elections of 2013, when one of the elected Councilors (Wolfgang Kleinwächter) was appointed to the ICANN Board. This would have been alright, because Klaus was filling a “vacancy” at the time.

Thanks.

Amr