<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
AW: [council] Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to two Houses
Stéphane,
thanks for doing this.
My thinking is far from making things more complicate rather than to find a
solution being as close as possible to a consensus for all involved.
We seem to have no input from the NomCom regarding the assignment to a specific
house, and since 2 NCAs apply for an NCPH assignment there is ongoing
discussion within and between the SGs represented in the house.
I expect that this will lead to an agreement in time.
Kind regards
Wolf-Ulrich
________________________________
Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder
Gesendet: Montag, 26. September 2011 22:20
An: GNSO Council List
Betreff: Re: [council] Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection
to two Houses
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
<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
<http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XX-5> and as described in Section
5 of Article X <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5> , 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
<http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-3.8> ) 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
<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 <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
<http://gnso.icann.org/>
>
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|