<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to two Houses
Thanks Wolf.
I will let you and the Council know if I hear back from the NomCom.
Stéphane
Le 27 sept. 2011 à 11:06, <KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> 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, 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
>>>
|