ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] NCA Assignments

Hi again,

On Oct 8, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

What is the NCSG position?

I can only speak for NCUC. I raised the issue the other day among our leadership and we only had responses from two of the nine people (councilors plus newly elected Exec. Comm), and they had somewhat different perspectives, so there was nothing that could be called a consensus position. At the same time, as of yesterday morning when I got a message from Kristina indicating CSG support and asking for our view, I'd not seen any discussion on the list with other SGs expressing a preference. So it seemed unlikely there was time to go back to our people spread around the world in different time zones, arrive at a clear position, and then engage other SGs on the list and get consensus before the random selection was to kick in.

Are you opposed to seating Andrei in the
Non-Contracted Party House?

?? Last I heard the NCAs had suggested

Contracted Parties House - Andrey
Non contracted Parties House - Terry
Independent non-voting - Olga
If so, please say so even if it is just
from the NCUC. I happened to talk to RrSG ExCom members and am aware of
their position but I will let them communicate that.

Would be good to hear. But we'd agreed an approach and Avri followed it, so on process grounds this discussion is a bit puzzling.



-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 9:00 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Avri Doria; Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] NCA Assignments

Hi Chuck,

On Oct 8, 2009, at 2:38 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

I do not believe your assessment is correct Avri.  My
understanding is
that Kristina communicated that the CSG supported seating
Terry in the
Non-Contracted Party House but I will let her speak for herself.
Regarding the RySG, I sent an email supporting that as well.

Like I guess Avri I must have missed your message, when did
you send it?

Either way, how would two of four SGs be sufficient?


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 5:26 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] NCA Assignments


Because the motion the council passed required that the 4 SG in
consensus through their reps either agree to the NCA
or come up with another plan.

As far as I can tell only the CSG agreed with the NCA
and there was no consensus on another plan by
7 Oct, hence we fall through to the random selection.


On 8 Oct 2009, at 10:11, Philip Sheppard wrote:


I believe a preference has been expressed for Terry and the
NCP House.
Why is this being ignored ?

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>