ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< 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 >>>