Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses

[William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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,

Bill