<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] formal position requirement
- To: carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] formal position requirement
- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 19:14:14 +0200
- Cc: "john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx " <john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx>, "ajp@xxxxxxxxxxxx " <ajp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Samantha.Eisner@xxxxxxxxx " <Samantha.Eisner@xxxxxxxxx>, "robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx " <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>, "liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx " <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>, "daniel.halloran@xxxxxxxxx " <daniel.halloran@xxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx " <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <SNT131-ds12D3A91F40D05C7D918E47B4EB0@phx.gbl>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <SNT131-ds12D3A91F40D05C7D918E47B4EB0@phx.gbl>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
JJ's advice includes comments on rotation that I cannot see in the bylaws…
Stéphane
Le 20 oct. 2011 à 03:16, carlos dionisio aguirre a écrit :
>
> Stephane,
> With all my respect, the advice given by JJ is perfect, having in account the
> alternance of one and two NCAs each year. On the other hand, what happens
> when NomCom only appoint one NCA GNSO Council? Where this member will be
> assigned? Will be homeless during all period in GNSO? . Sorry but IMHO your
> reading is wrong. I think there are not any other possible interpretation, of
> course under my humble point of view.
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Enviado desde mi dispositivo inalámbrico BlackBerry®
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 00:22:23
> To: <john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <ajp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <Samantha.Eisner@xxxxxxxxx>;
> <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>; <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>;
> <daniel.halloran@xxxxxxxxx>; <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [council] Re: formal position requirement
>
> Thanks JJ, I am copying the Council on my response.
>
>
> From my reading of the bylaws, I see no mention of a requirement for
> rotation. So in theory, an NCA could be constantly given the same assignment
> by the NomCom. Is this read correct? If so, why are you suggesting rotation
> systems in your last paragraph?
>
>
> Adam, please let us know what the NomCom plans to do and when. I'm sure you
> understand that the GNSO is keen to get this matter resolved before we sit
> the new Council, on the Wednesday of the Dakar meeting.
>
>
>
>
>
> Stéphane
>
>
>
>
>
> Le 19 oct. 2011 à 19:43, John Jeffrey a écrit :
>
>
> Resending - may have been an error in transmission.
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: John Jeffrey < <mailto:john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx> john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx> >
>
> Subject: Fwd: formal position requirement
>
> Date: October 19, 2011 9:19:12 AM PDT
>
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder < <mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx> >, Adam
> Peake < <mailto:ajp@xxxxxxxxxxxx> ajp@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ajp@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >
>
> Cc: Samantha Eisner < <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@xxxxxxxxx>
> Samantha.Eisner@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:Samantha.Eisner@xxxxxxxxx> >, Robert
> Hoggarth < <mailto:robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx> robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx> >, Liz Gasster <
> <mailto:liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx> liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx> >, Daniel Halloran <
> <mailto:daniel.halloran@xxxxxxxxx> daniel.halloran@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:daniel.halloran@xxxxxxxxx> >
>
> Bcc: John Jeffrey < <mailto:john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx> john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx> >
>
>
> Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE
> Dear Stephane and Adam,
> I write to you jointly as Chairs of the GNSO and the NomCom. I received the
> attached note from Carlos Dionisio Aguirre regarding the NomCom appointees to
> the GNSO and noted the need to provide advice on the ICANN Bylaws.
> Article X, Section 3.e requires the NomCom to appoint three members of the
> GNSO Council. Of those appointees, one shall be non-voting, and "one voting
> representative shall be assigned to each House . . . by the Nominating
> Committee." This Bylaws provision requires the NomCom to assign voting
> representatives among the GNSO's contracted and non-contracted party houses.
> Pursuant to the Bylaws, this assignment work should not be left to the GNSO.
> I appreciate that with the GNSO Restructuring, the initial assignment of the
> single NomCom Appointee (NCA) selected by the NomCom in 2010 did not pose a
> lot of complexity. However, now that the restructured form of the GNSO
> Council is in place and the NomCom is making appointments for multiple NCAs,
> it is important for the NomCom to complete the assignment process and
> identify the roles of the NCAs to the GNSO. If possible, I encourage the
> NomCom to complete this assignment process prior to the ICANN AGM in Dakar,
> Senegal and the seating of the new GNSO Council members (28 October 2011).
> Due to the NomCom's appointment rotation (2 NCAs to the GNSO in odd years, 1
> NCA in even years), it may be beneficial for the NomCom and GNSO to consult
> together to determine if the GNSO would be better served by having both
> voting NCAs rotate at the same time, or if it is preferable to have 1 voting
> and 1 non-voting NCA rotate at the same time, with the term of the other
> voting NCA rotating in even years. Further, as the NomCom and the GNSO
> continue dialogue on identifying skill sets for the NCAs to the GNSO, skills
> desirable for each role (Non-Contracted House NCA, Contracted House NCA and
> Non-Voting NCA) could be identified for NomCom consideration.
> I look forward to seeing you in Dakar. If you have any questions, or we can
> be of assistance to you, please let us know.
>
>
>
> John Jeffrey
> General Counsel & Secretary
> ICANN
> <mailto:JJ@xxxxxxxxx> JJ@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:JJ@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: <mailto:carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx> carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <mailto:john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx> john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: formal position requirement
> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:09:01 +0000
>
>
>
>
> Cordoba, October 10th 2011.
>
> Dear John Jeffrey
> ICANN General Councel
>
> I'm writting to you, to ask your formal opinion as General Councel in
> relation with the meaning of one clause of the ICANN bylaws.
>
> First, let me introduce myself: I`m Carlos Dionisio Aguirre, some of my hats
> are: Lawyer Specialist in business law, teacher of Economy, and Informatic`s
> Legislation at National University of Cordoba in Argentina , International
> Director of AGEIA DENSI (Academic NGO), Vice President of ADIAR (Argentinian
> Cyberlaw Lawyers Asociation), Former ALAC member elected and reelected by
> LACRALO, and currently ICANN NCA GNSO Council.
>
> Im very interested in your particular opinion & intelligence (understanding)
> about the following clause, and as ICANN General Councel:
>
>
>
> "BYLAWS FOR INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS.
> 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."
>
> This formal asking, has to do particularly with the last sentence in the
> paragraph exposed and highlighted in red.
>
>
> Some opinions by me, first: ( you can contradict if you believe I am wrong,
> please)
>
> -Bylaws are mandatory into ICANN environment for all and everybody.
> -All into ICANN environment are regulated by our bylaws.
> -everybody have to respect and fulfill the clauses content in ICANN bylaws.
> -If bylaws are representing "the legal" into ICANN environment, not fulfill
> this rules means "not legal". So, the fact commited after that, is null, or
> at least could be reviewed.
> -Bylaws were made by all community for ICANN community, and it is not
> possible that "some parts" in agreement ( through detour the decisions of
> the whole community), choose to change, against what bylaws are saying.
>
>
> Now :
>
> I am asking formaly your position as ICANN General Councel, because:
>
> IMHO the sentence mentioned is absolutely clear, transparent, no need
> interpretation and shows what the bylaws want in relation on it.
>
> IMHO If the NCA appointees were not assigned to each house (into GNSO), the
> situation would constitute a violation or at least a serious lack of
> commitment by NomCom.
>
> IMHO if GNSO after that (the previous situation) convalidate this (the no
> assign by GNSO) and decide "by consensus" of two houses (CPH & NCPH), assign
> one of them on each, is also a violation of our bylaws, or at least act
> against it.
>
> IMHO If the situation occur. What happen with the resolutions taken by GNSO?
> Having in account that the quorum was obtained on this way (with some members
> bad designated in each houses, or designated against bylaws rules.
>
> IMHO consider that the situation is serious, because is happening right now
> (and is not new), affect seriously "the transparency" (what is part of CORE)
> of ICANN. And IMHO is the same to say to all community: "don`t take in
> account bylaws rules, because somebody can change, in agreement with other,
> if it is onvenient for they ."`
>
>
> That is what I feel about this complicated situation, and my legal formation
> forced me to claim for a formal interpretation of this clause, in order to
> solve (IMO) the serious situation what is happening, and keep safe the
> concept of "transparency" into ICANN.
>
> Before to conclude, and give in advance my thanks for your prompt response, I
> want to say that in this event there are not involved my own interests. Im
> part of the ICANN community, Im part of the civil society into this, and Im
> currently acting by me, in my personal capacity, and in their representation.
>
> Lastly I Think would be good to get your definition and opinion in order to
> give advice and define this controversy. Is my intention give publicity to
> this
>
> Thanks, in advance
>
> All my respect.
>
> Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
>
> NCA GNSO Council - ICANN
> former ALAC member by LACRALO
> Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios
> [redacted]
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|