Re: [council] NCA assignments
- To: carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] NCA assignments
- From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:21:45 +0200
- Cc: <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <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>
- In-reply-to: <SNT131-W4009970BA076EC4A0BD042B4EF0@phx.gbl>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <SNT131-W4009970BA076EC4A0BD042B4EF0@phx.gbl>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I don't understand the points you are making. Is this something that we can
discuss at some point, perhaps in the wrap-up at the end of the week, or
privately if you prefer and then with your permission I could update the
I am not saying that your points are wrong, just that I would like to get more
clarity on exactly what it is your are saying went wrong.
My understanding so far:
- The bylaws say that the NomCom shall make the appointments.
- JJ's note confirms this.
- The bylaws do not say that a rotation should be introduced.
- JJ's second note confirms this ("There is no requirement for rotation of the
NomCom appointees among the three seats.")
- The NomCom has made its assignments.
What I don't understand is where the gap in the process that you mention is?
Thanks for any help you can give me in understanding that.
Le 24 oct. 2011 à 11:43, carlos dionisio aguirre a écrit :
> 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