ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< 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 >>>