RE: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
- To: "Avri Doria" <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
- From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:35:04 -0700
- Cc: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Reply-to: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Web-Based Email 5.1.20
I think notifying the SIC was premature. The process calls for the
Council to acknowledge and confirm the results. That implies to me a
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, October 15, 2009 1:22 pm
To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
This occurred during the part of the call where I was off line and the
call was being chaired by Chuck. when I came back on the cal I asked
for clarification of what had been decided.
Chuck confirmed in an earlier message that this was the case. I
expect it was a consent sort of thing where no one objected, they way
the council has made all of it consensus decisions.
I would note, that I have informed the SIC of the decision on NCA
placement as I indicated I would in my first message on this topic
this morning. I believe the decision is made and it is time to move on.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 20:07, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>> the council agreed to a process of unanimous consent on the extended
>> 'negotiations' and you did not get unanimous consent.
> When did we do this? Was it a vote, or a respond if you object kind of
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, October 15, 2009 11:36 am
> To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> The problems are:
> - the request for an extension of time was not madeuntil after the
> drawing happened, thus making the request something that happened
> after the the decision was made.
> - the council agreed to a process of unanimous consent on the extended
> 'negotiations' and you did not get unanimous consent.
> On 15 Oct 2009, at 18:25, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>> The only aspect of the agreed process that was not met is the
>> 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
>> 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>
>> Hi Stéphane,
>> The agreed process has played out and there's not much to be gained
>> 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
>> 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
>> Fourth, in terms of substantive outcomes, do you feel it would have
>> been much better signaling to the ICANN community and the larger
>> 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,