ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[council] NCA assignments

  • To: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: [council] NCA assignments
  • From: carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:43:43 +0000
  • Cc: <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>
  • Importance: Normal
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx








Thanks Tim for your comment. 


I understand very well, the idea to remain this discussion open is not 
for me only, and particularly, I know How many contributions I can do 
from my current position, this is one of this.


I saw a serious gap in the procedure, because bylaws were saying 
different things. In this order I ask for the advice of General Councel.


The advice was made, but the application in the reality IMHO was bad done.


The application of the advice given by JJ not give a permanent solution, or 
give a bad solution at least for some interests. 


May be is needed a deep discussion to get a common understanding , for 
all grups and people involved, to determine and clarify waht will be the
 procedure in the future.


I particular consider " the differences disappear talking", and is what I
 am promoting, because I feel in this case we have have not a enough 
comunication to solve this properly,  some people and constituencies 
were not contacted, and their opinion must be
hear (in relation with the aplication of advice given by JJ), just 
because their interests count also. The advice of General Councel was in
 this way, specially the last paragraph, but only some parts were 
contacted to reach a general consensus.


Thanks again Tim, and want to say that more than a problem is a 
possibility to have a permanent solution for this issue,  and in perfect
 agreement with bylaws  and the authorized interpretation given by JJ, 
and the understanding of the parts interested on this.


Also and finally (at least for now) I want to say:  This situation was not 
caused by me, The situation have another origin, and you know that.





Thanks again. And I am sure you and me are following the same, a good, 
agreed and permanent solution on this issue and in strict relation with 
ICANN bylaws 




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
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>