RE: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
- To: "GNSO Council " <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:25:32 -0700
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Reply-to: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Web-Based Email 5.1.20
The only aspect of the agreed process that was not met is the timeline.
We routinely stretch timelines, even those mandated in bylaws. I
certainly did not understand the process to mean we had to reach
unanimity. When do we ever expect that?
The fact of the matter is that three of the four SGs agreed on an
assignment plan. That plan puts Terry where he prefers and Olga seemed
flexible. It does put Andrei in the seat he would prefer not to have,
but he is the newest NCA. I don't see that as unreasonable.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, October 15, 2009 10:57 am
To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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
> 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.