<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] RE: Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to two Houses
I think Alan's summary is spot on. But in my personal opinion, it is not the
case that there are only 2 options going forward as you suggest Wolf-Ulrich.
The Council is already knee deep in process on so many things, we may not wish
to add another layer.
I agree with you that we may need to do so, but why don't we wait to see if
there is a problem dealing with the NCPH NCA assignment this year before
deciding on that?
So far, as Alan describes, the NCA assignments have been made through
discussion between the houses and the NCAs, and everyone has been able to agree
and reach a result that suited.
Do you expect this not to be the case this year?
Stéphane
Le 26 sept. 2011 à 17:23, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> Thanks Alan for clarification from a NomCom perspective which is important to
> know.
>
> I understand there will be 2 choices for the future:
> - either the NomCom shall act according to the bylaws and assign the NCAs to
> the houses, meaning all 3 NCAs every year
> - or in case the NomCom doesn't assign the SG's should find consensus,
> meaning a process has to be defined in this respect. This could be a job for
> the SCI if the council agrees.
>
> For the present case let's find consensus. This may require some coordination
> on SG and house level
>
> Kind regards
> Wolf-Ulrich
>
> Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Im
> Auftrag von Alan Greenberg
> Gesendet: Montag, 26. September 2011 16:51
> An: GNSO Council
> Betreff: RE: [council] RE: Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to
> two Houses
>
> The Bylaws do indeed assign the responsibility to the NomCom, but the NomCom
> has never acted on that. In 2009, when the appointment was made prior to the
> new Bylaws, a procedure was adopted by Council (
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-24sep09.htm, Item 5, motion
> section 10). This called for the SGs to reach consensus (taking into
> consideration the wishes of the NCAs) by a certain date, or the single fresh
> GNSO NCA would be assigned to the non-voting position and the other two would
> be assigned by random selection. My recollection is that consensus was not
> reached and the random method was used.
>
> Last year, without a NomCom explicit decision, all parties came to an
> agreement and the matter was not further discussed.
>
> My personal position is that the Bylaw wording was ill-advised because by
> following this rule ensures that once put in a specific position, the NCA is
> their for the duration of their term. In the case of the non-voting position,
> I find this unreasonable.
>
> So Carlos is correct about the Bylaw provision, but in the absence of the
> NomCom acting on it, there is no established procedure and no precedent on
> which to rely - the 2009 interim rules do not apply with two incoming
> inexperienced NCAs and agreement had not been reached as in 2010.
>
> One could infer from the 2009 interim rules that if there was an
> inexperienced incoming NCA, that person should be given the non-voting role
> and I believe that this is the what Glen referred to as the norm. However,
> neither precedent provides any firm guidance regarding this year's case where
> there are two inexperienced incoming NCAs.
>
> Alan
>
>
> At 26/09/2011 09:47 AM, carlos dionisio aguirre wrote:
>> Dear kristina: There are a "norm" , the ICANN Bylaws are mandatory and
>> clearly decide about the situation
>>
>> Section 3. GNSO COUNCIL
>> 1. Subject to the provisions of Transition Article XX, Section 5 of these
>> Bylaws and as described in Section 5 of Article X, the GNSO Council shall
>> consist of:
>> a. three representatives selected from the Registries Stakeholder Group;
>> b. three representatives selected from the Registrars Stakeholder Group;
>> c. six representatives selected from the Commercial Stakeholder Group;
>> d. six representatives selected from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group;
>> and
>> e. three representatives selected by the ICANN Nominating Committee, one of
>> which shall be non-voting, but otherwise entitled to participate on equal
>> footing with other members of the GNSO Council including, e.g. the making
>> and seconding of motions and of serving as Chair if elected. One Nominating
>> Committee Appointee voting representative shall be assigned to each House
>> (as described in Section 3(8) of this Article) by the Nominating Committee.
>>
>>
>> Kind regards.
>>
>> Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
>>
>>
>>
>> NCA GNSO Council - ICANN
>> former ALAC member by LACRALO
>> Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios
>> Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
>> *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
>> http://ar.ageiadensi.org
>>
>>
>> > From: krosette@xxxxxxx
>> > To: Glen@xxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > CC: robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx; stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx;
>> > gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:35:07 -0400
>> > Subject: [council] RE: Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to
>> > two Houses
>> >
>> >
>> > I don't believe it's correct to say that there has been any "norm" as I
>> > don't think we've been doing this long enough to say there is. It's my
>> > recollection that any pattern you describe is due primarily to an incoming
>> > NCA deferring to the preference of an existing NCA. As both Lanre and
>> > Carlos would like to be assigned to NCPH, this is a matter for the NCPH to
>> > address, in my opinion.
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [ mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> > On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
>> > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 5:27 AM
>> > To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Cc: Robert Hoggarth; Stéphane Van Gelder; gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Subject: [council] Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to two
>> > Houses
>> >
>> >
>> > Dear All,
>> >
>> > As you know, the Nominating Committee (Nom Com) has selected two Nom Com
>> > Appointees (NCAs), Lanre Ajayi and Thomas Rickert, to serve on the GNSO
>> > Council for the upcoming year.
>> >
>> > Thomas Rickert has requested to be assigned to the Contracted Parties
>> > House (CPH) and the CPH has formally agreed that Thomas is a voting member
>> > in the CPH.
>> >
>> > As it has traditionally been the norm that the previous year's non-voting
>> > NCA becomes a voting NCA, we expect that Carlos Aguirre will be assigned
>> > to the NCPH this year, and Lanre Ajayi will be assigned the non-voting
>> > seat.
>> >
>> > Is this correct? Due to the close proximity of the Dakar meeting and the
>> > need to finalize organizational aspects of the meeting, the GNSO Council
>> > Secretariat would appreciate being informed of the NCPH NCA assignment no
>> > later than 30 September 2011 at 22:00 UTC.
>> >
>> > Thank you very much.
>> > Kind regards,
>> >
>> > Glen
>> >
>> >
>> > Glen de Saint Géry
>> > GNSO Secretariat
>> > gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > http://gnso.icann.org
>> >
>> >
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|