Re: [council] Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to two Houses

[Olga Cavalli <olgacavalli@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,
Carlos rises an important point.
Noncom Appointees to the GNSO should be assigned to the respective houses
following a certain procedure that must be transparent and fair for all the
participants.
This procedure must be clearly established and followed.
Best regards
Olga



2011/10/15 carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx>

>  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 <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."
>
>
> 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 <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
>
>
> > 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<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
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>