<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] NCA assignments
- To: <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>, <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx>, Adam Peake <ajp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <samantha.eisner@xxxxxxxxx>, <robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx>, <daniel.halloran@xxxxxxxxx>, <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>, <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <vanda@xxxxxxxxxx>, <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>, <joette.youkhanna@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [council] NCA assignments
- From: carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 18:25:14 +0000
- Importance: Normal
- In-reply-to: <62D4AF5B-5174-4B6B-B8BE-F77D266B52B9@indom.com>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <p06240802cac9bf79ebde@[10.196.226.19]>,<62D4AF5B-5174-4B6B-B8BE-F77D266B52B9@indom.com>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Aparently the designations are well, But NomCom didn`t have in consideration
(or yes. In this case is needed a clarification why) about the rotation
(mentioned in advice given by The ICANN General Councel) of the 3 NCA`s.
And, due the omission of last year, the fact is: There are one NCA (myself) who
was during this year "Homeless", and if the new NomCom assignment be
validated, my "position of homeless" will be for my second year term too (a big
mistake, IMHO). Founded on that, I want to appeal this resolution.
If this new mistake (from my point of view) is not corrected, I have the
desition to claim to ICANN Ombudsman.
I can do other considerations but I reserve for future it if would be needed.
In the same sense, I want to clarify that my position is not against anyone in
particular. I consider was commited a mistake again, and I claim for that.
Mi attitude will be remain till the ICANN General Councel and the ICANN
Ombusman validate the resolution made by NomCom, and show me my own mistake
With all my respect.
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: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] NCA assignments
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2011 18:54:59 +0200
CC: ajp@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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]
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|