[council] NCA assignments

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Councillors,

Please see below the assignments that the NomCom has made following the 
correspondence received from ICANN General Counsel on this issue.

These assignments will therefore be enacted on Wednesday, when we sit the New 
Council, as planned.

My thanks to the NomCom for working so quickly to provide us with their 
assignments.
 
Stéphane



Début du message réexpédié :

> De : Adam Peake <ajp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Objet : Rép : Fwd: formal position requirement
> Date : 23 octobre 2011 18:47:48 HAEC
> À : John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc : Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@xxxxxxxxx>, Robert Hoggarth     
> <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>, Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>, Daniel 
> Halloran <daniel.halloran@xxxxxxxxx>, Stéphane Van Gelder 
> <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, Rob Hall <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Vanda UOL" 
> <vanda@xxxxxxxxxx>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>, Joette Youkhanna 
> <joette.youkhanna@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Dear John,
> 
> When we made our appointments we were not aware 
> we should assign our GNSO selected nominees to 
> the Non-Contracted House and Contracted House.
> 
> Since receiving your email, October 19th, the 
> 2011 NomCom reconvened, discussed the 
> appointments and agreed on the following 
> assignments:
> 
> Lanre Ajayi, GNSO Non-Contracted House
> Thomas Rickert, GNSO Contracted House
> 
> 1 year terms.
> 
> Regarding the issue of future rotation, as the 
> 2011 NomCom process is coming to a close, I will 
> recommend to future NomComs that they discuss and 
> make recommendations in due course.
> 
> If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Warm regards,
> 
> Adam
> 
> Adam Peake
> Chair, ICANN Nominating Committee 2011
> <http://nomcom.icann.org/>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 10:43 AM -0700 10/19/11, John Jeffrey wrote:
>> Resending - may have been an error in transmission.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>>> From: John Jeffrey <<>john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> 
>>>> Subject: Fwd: formal position requirement
>>>> 
>>>> Date: October 19, 2011 9:19:12 AM PDT
>>>> 
>>>> To: Stéphane Van Gelder 
>>>> <<>stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, Adam Peake 
>>>> <<>ajp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> 
>>>> Cc: Samantha Eisner 
>>>> <<>Samantha.Eisner@xxxxxxxxx>, Robert Hoggarth 
>>>> <<>robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>, Liz Gasster 
>>>> <<>liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>, Daniel Halloran 
>>>> <<>daniel.halloran@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> 
>>>> Bcc: John Jeffrey <<>john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 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 
>>>> ³one voting representative shall be assigned 
>>>> to each House . . . by the Nominating 
>>>> Committee.²  This Bylaws provision requires 
>>>> the NomCom to assign voting representatives 
>>>> among the GNSO¹s 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 NomCom¹s 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
>>>> <>JJ@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> 
>>>>> From: <>carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> To: <>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
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I¹m 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:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> ³BYLAWS FOR INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERSŠ
>>>>> ARTICLE VII: NOMINATING COMMITTEE Š
>>>>> 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.²
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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  ³the legal² into 
>>>>> ICANN environment, not fulfill this rules 
>>>>> means ³not legal². 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 ³some 
>>>>> parts²  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 ³by consensus² 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 ³the 
>>>>> transparency²  (what is part of CORE) of 
>>>>> ICANN. And IMHO is the same to say to all 
>>>>> community: ³don`t take in account bylaws 
>>>>> rules, because somebody can change, in 
>>>>> agreement with other,  if it is onvenient for 
>>>>> they .²`
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 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 ³transparency² 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]
>