Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
Hi Bill, I do not feel, unless I have misunderstood, that you are right in saying that Andrei did not want the non-voting seat. Quite the contrary if I recall what he said during the meeting. Also, Terry has been very adamant about his wish to be in the NC house, which is also the opposite of the lottery result. On satisfying the NCAs, that is a concern I have raised. But it doesn't mean that the RrSG should not be given sufficient time to consult internally (which as you know isn't always a quick process) and that the SG has to share my concern. In the end, I think the position reached by the RrSG does actually reflect a strong concern for satisfying the NCAs' wishes. And I can tell you that during the internal discussions we had, that concern was often voiced. On your third point, I spoke to that during our last meeting. I do feel that process should be followed. I actually suggested that we accept the result of the lottery on that basis. However, others suggested we give ourselves an extra week to discuss. As a compromise I think that was a sensible way to go. But it does mean the situation has now changed and we have a strong majority of the SGs for option 1. Since the process issue you speak of, the holding of a lottery, only came about because the Council basically ran out of time to confer, in this particular instance I think allowing ourselves a short week to further discuss was the right thing to do. Sorry Bill, my turn to be slow :) I just don't understand your final question... Thanks, Stéphane Le 15/10/09 17:57, « William Drake » <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > 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 Attachment:
smime.p7s
|