<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] Re: formal position requirement
- To: John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] Re: formal position requirement
- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 20:24:15 +0200
- Cc: Adam Peake <ajp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@xxxxxxxxx>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>, Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran@xxxxxxxxx>, "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <8D136E3F-BF34-4379-B19A-7D4EBCF95353@icann.org>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <C19A277D-017D-4088-AC7D-849A3418C2CE@icann.org> <4F2CFBA6-D967-4388-BFBA-35B059E60B37@icann.org> <6B754FFC-654C-4379-A3C7-F9FF8EFDE503@indom.com> <8D136E3F-BF34-4379-B19A-7D4EBCF95353@icann.org>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks John.
Stéphane
Le 23 oct. 2011 à 20:18, John Jeffrey a écrit :
>
> Stephane -
>
> The rotation I mentioned earlier referred to cycle of NomCom appointments.
> There is no requirement for rotation of the NomCom appointees among the three
> seats. To follow the Bylaws, I recommend that its preferable for the
> NomCom's appointments to be considered for the specific roles on the Council
> (Contracted House NCA, Non-Contracted House NCA and Non-Voting NCA).
>
> The NomCom cycle of appointments to the GNSO Council is 2 in odd years and 1
> in even years. Given that each time an appointment is made, there is the
> potential for a new person to be appointed to the seat, my suggestion below
> was to encourage the GNSO and the NomCom to consider if it is preferable to
> have both voting NCAs appointed at the same time, with the Non-voting NCA
> appointed in the following year, or if the GNSO would be better served by
> having one voting NCA and the Non-voting NCA appointed in the same year, with
> the other voting NCA appointed in the next year.
>
> I hope this clarifies my statement for you. Please let me know if you have
> additional question.
>
>
> John Jeffrey
> General Counsel & Secretary
> ICANN
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> Marina del Rey, CA USA 90292
> direct dial - +1.310.301.5834
> mobile - +1.310.404.6001
> JJ@xxxxxxxxx
>
> On Oct 20, 2011, at 12:22 AM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
>
>> 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 <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 “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
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>
|