ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


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

Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses

  • To: Andrei Kolesnikov <andrei@xxxxxxxx>, "'Terry L Davis, P.E.'" <tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'William Drake'" <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
  • From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:03:44 +0200
  • Cc: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <017e01ca4ddf$5de1df10$19a59d30$@ru>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcpNsKFYE4FVcAylSLibkkm+p9m6lQABQ9vwAAOCCg8ABkfVwAAYrfIf
  • Thread-topic: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
  • User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605

Thanks for that clarification Andrei.

Stéphane


Le 15/10/09 23:34, « Andrei Kolesnikov » <andrei@xxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 
> I should copy / paste Terry's statement.
> 
>>>> Olga and Andrey were both interested in the Contracted Parties House
> 
> I was, but follow any Council verdict with pleasure. This is a short version
> of what I said during the call.
> 
> See you,
> 
> --andrei
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
>> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder
>> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:17 PM
>> To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; 'William Drake'
>> Cc: 'Council GNSO'
>> Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
>> 
>> Thanks Terry, that is very helpful.
>> 
>> Stéphane
>> 
>> 
>> Le 15/10/09 18:42, « Terry L Davis, P.E. » <tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a
>> écrit :
>> 
>>> 
>>> Stephane
>>> 
>>> Just for clarity, on this which I should have clarified earlier:
>>>> Terry indicated he was only willing to be placed the Non-contracted
>>>> parties house
>>> 
>>> That was my preference (most interested in), I was (and am) more than
>>> willing take whichever position the Council selected me for.
>>> 
>>> See you in Seoul.
>>> 
>>> Take care
>>> Terry
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
>> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>>> Behalf Of William Drake
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:58 AM
>>> To: Stéphane Van Gelder
>>> Cc: Council GNSO
>>> Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature



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