Re: [council] Reminder: Re:  NCA input to House placement
- To: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Reminder: Re:  NCA input to House placement
- From: Olga Cavalli <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 12:48:32 -0300
- Cc: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=iUMqgA0LP6xqrbewMBZRPMv3qOtfsDMWR4MXnkSgvkg=; b=DFV1J5B23Kv2szMF1q+5T7CnN+SBT9Uufw/hNPKpWpCrDk9TwNSSjz6feTD2BCzKhs nW2x4nMji0iBso/SwxyivSf4cQQ/BrsS5ueAA3McQCrcfsMSgyv+RUCC4yG52G77/jKW 8jimCw1QVzwz59UAfXRIoTrFyMRnTFslsw8xg=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=BHccbNShYuyYE6J8fSsvbWkWVyJUBwkudvcBcKMG46JMgG4F5TdPbgeXz1lbWBSOZQ UP+u3bpN8Mo5eyBPQpdrfRszJ7r0o55ftSCCn2cmBm5ongL16S44NfsBHbroieBPCgUV h2X1/wAOn1v1vlHbx9JHkOJvC1El4/DS9yuVk=
- In-reply-to: <B5B608F0-728F-4C44-82D8-11DC8B5477DC@acm.org>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <D4B935E5-0DA7-489C-844A-014FB9BE0259@acm.org> <B5B608F0-728F-4C44-82D8-11DC8B5477DC@acm.org>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
thanks Avri for the reminder.
I am available for exchanging comments and ideas about this if GNSO Council
Houses and/or their respective Stakeholder Groups think this is needed.
2009/10/5 Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> I wanted to remind those in the Constituencies/SGs that the council
> resolution regarding transition call for this activity to be completed by 7
> c. Taking into consideration the input from the NCAs, if any, both GNSO
>> Council Houses and/or their respective Stakeholder Groups should attempt to
>> reach agreement on the seating for each of the three NCAs for the first year
>> of the new bicameral Council and communicate the results to the Council not
>> later than 7 October 2009.
> with a fail safe of:
> d. If the GNSO Council Houses and/or their respective Stakeholder Groups
>> are unable to reach agreement, then the new, inexperienced NCA will take the
>> non-voting Council seat and random selection will be used to assign the
>> other two NCAs to Houses before the Council meeting on 8 October 2009.
> Note: If I need to do a random selection, I will use the Wednesday 7 Oct
> Powerball Lottery number (
> http://www.powerball.com/powerball/pb_numbers.asp) as seed to the IETF
> RFC3797 random selection algorithm with the names ordered alphabetic by
> first name.; ie. Olga, Terry. Doing so, however, will result in at least
> one of the NCAs being given an assignment that is contrary to their
> expressed intersts.
> On 29 Sep 2009, at 08:32, Avri Doria wrote:
>> This note is to notify the council that I have worked with the 3 NCAs of
>> the new council and have come up with their input to the council regarding
>> their recommendation for assigning NCA Council Seats as required by the
>> second bullet. This was an action that needed to be completed by 30
>> As a reminder, the Transition plan approved at the last meeting contains
>> the following:
>> For the period starting on 28 October 2009 and continuing only through
>>> the 2010 ICANN Annual Meeting, the following procedure will be used to
>>> assign NCAs to Council seats:
>>> • ICANN Staff should ensure that a Statement of Interest is
>>> received from Andrey Kolesnikov and sent to the Council not later than 30
>>> September 2009.
>>> • Not later than 30 September 2009, new and existing NCAs will
>>> make best efforts to collaborate and provide their input to the GNSO Council
>>> regarding their recommendations for assigning NCA Council seats. Such input
>>> should include any seating assignments that any of the NCAs would
>>> individually be uncomfortable taking along with their reasons.
>>> • Taking into consideration the input from the NCAs, if any, both
>>> GNSO Council Houses and/or their respective Stakeholder Groups should
>>> attempt to reach agreement on the seating for each of the three NCAs for the
>>> first year of the new bicameral Council and communicate the results to the
>>> Council not later than 7 October 2009.
>>> • If the GNSO Council Houses and/or their respective Stakeholder
>>> Groups are unable to reach agreement, then the new, inexperienced NCA will
>>> take the non-voting Council seat and random selection will be used to assign
>>> the other two NCAs to Houses before the Council meeting on 8 October 2009.
>>> • In the meeting scheduled for 8 October 2009, the Council will
>>> acknowledge the results of this process and confirm that it was properly
>> In terms of the first point Glen is currently working with Andrey to get
>> the required SOI completed
>> In terms of the second point, we have recorded the output of the NCAs and
>> make the following recommendations as input to further discussions:
>> Contracted Parties House - Andrey
>> Non contracted Parties House - Terry
>> Independent non-voting - Olga
>> The Process we followed:
>> - First I created a doodle where each of them could indicate their
>> preference. This was one of the 'yes-green, maybe-yellow, no-red' doodles.
>> I set this up as hidden poll, so that consideration for each other's
>> choices would not stand in the way of each of them stating, in the first
>> instance, their personal preference.
>> The idea was that once we saw the individual preferences, they could then
>> negotiate a final list based on knowing what each other really wanted, or
>> was willing, to do.
>> I also made myself available for any of them who wanted to get more
>> background information, but no one took me up on the offer.
>> Note: I also told them that if they hated the idea of the poll we could
>> start in another way, but I was looking for a way to reach a conclusion
>> - The individual preferences, a snapshot of which is included below,
>> showed that there was one possible solution from the beginning which would
>> avoid any of them having to take a position they did not want.
>> The results (depicted below):
>> Olga and Andrey were both interested in the Contracted Parties House
>> All three of them were willing to be placed in the Non-Contracted parties
>> Terry indicated he was only willing to be placed the Non-contracted
>> parties house
>> Olga was the only one indicating willingness to take the Independent non
>> voting role
>> I suggested this as a starting position for their discussions, but also
>> suggested they could ignore it, if they desired.
>> - In the following conversation they all accepted the proposal, each for
>> his/her own reasons:
>> Andrey felt that his experience in managing a zone with 2.3 M domains,
>> which is 99%
>> compatible to a .COM environment, made him feel comfortable going into the
>> Contracted Parties house.
>> Terry felt that based on his experience in industry the Non Contracted
>> parties house was the most appropriate.
>> Olga was willing to take any of the roles, though she had a preference for
>> the Contracted parties.
>> - It is now up to the houses, to decide if they are willing to accept the
>> input of the NCAs. If not, they will need to come up with another proposal.
>> I invite the NCA's to add any comments to this they feel would be useful
>> to the Houses in making their decision, but am not in any way obliging them
>> to do so.
>> I should mention that Andrey has been added to this list (as all newly
>> appointed/elected council members will be), and I welcome him. Of course
>> the incoming council members are observers on the list until 28 October. In
>> keep with our normal processes, I invite the new council members to
>> participate on the list as fully as they feel ready to with voting and the
>> making of motions being the only exceptions.
Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing.