Re: [council] Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to two Houses

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Putting my Chair hat back on, I have sent an email to the current NomCom Chair, 
Adam Peake, asking him if he has any advice for the Council on this.

I will of course let you know when he responds.

Thanks,

Stéphane



Le 26 sept. 2011 à 22:12, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :

> 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
>>> > 
>>> >
>