ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses

  • To: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
  • From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:57:44 +0200
  • Cc: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <C6FCF184.2CAC0%stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <C6FCF184.2CAC0%stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi Stéphane,

The agreed process has played out and there's not much to be gained by challenging each other's preferences, or the value of consensus processes. However, I would simply like to understand FMI what you're saying here. May I pose four questions, please:

On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:

This means that, despite the overall support of the SGs for a solution which
was also inline with what the NCAs wanted themselves, we opt for the
solution that suits only one SG. Hardly seems fair.

I really think we should try and honour the NCAs' wishes if we can, and the
proposed option 1 did that.

First, the NCA's wishes, as recounted by Avri on Sept. 29, were as follows:

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 house. 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

So Olga was willing to take any of the three, and made clear on the last council call that she'd be perfectly happy with non-contracted. And under the RySG option 1, Andrei was to be given the non-voting seat, which he clearly did not want. So on what basis can it be said that RySG option 1 was uniquely in line with the NCAs' wishes?

Second, if satisfying the NCAs was your overarching concern (and again, your preferred solution did not in fact do this), then why did the RrSG wait from Sept. 29 to Oct. 14 to express a preference? You had two full weeks to take a stand for that principle, but said nothing until after NCSG stated the horridly unjust view that we should do what we agreed to do.

Third, since you're running for chair, I'd much appreciate it if you could share your views on whether, as a general matter, the council is obliged to abide by the rules and procedures it agrees for itself. Are these binding, or can they be tossed aside or worked around (e.g. through external lobbying) whenever they prove inconvenient to someone?

Fourth, in terms of substantive outcomes, do you feel it would have been much better signaling to the ICANN community and the larger world if all three candidates for chair had been from the contracted house?

Sorry to be slow, I'm just trying to understand your thinking.

Thanks much,


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