<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to two Houses
Councilors: I`m Back on this issue, in my particular view it seems to me the
situation is a serious one. We need to define it, because the transparency of
the GNSO resolutions is on game. On the other side, there are not possibility
to reach a consensus to violate bylaws, or decide something different against
bylaws are saying, this is not legitimate nor legal in any system. In my
opinion only possibility is to ask the NomCom finally act in the same line of
the bylaws puting the NCA Councilors in each house or as homeless, clarifying
there are another old NCA Councilor still without vote . The bylaws are very
clear. I invite read again the specific rule :
"ARTICLE VII: NOMINATING COMMITTEE
- 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."
In my opinion there are not interpretation to do, because rule is
extremely clear at last sentence of the paragraph. However, just in case, and
in my personal capacity, I sent few days ago an email to the ICANN General
Councel asking his opinion about it.
It seems to me, this could be a good action moving forward the discussion on
this issue, in advance our next Dakar meeting.
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
Subject: Re: [council] Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to two
Houses
From: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:33:48 +0200
CC: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: KnobenW@xxxxxxxxxx
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
>>>
|