RE: [council] NCA assignments

[carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Stephane, 

my answers to you in red below. thanks to ask me 

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 


Subject: Re: [council] NCA assignments
From: stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:21:45 +0200
CC: tim@xxxxxxxxxxx; council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; john.jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx; 
ajp@xxxxxxxxxxxx; samantha.eisner@xxxxxxxxx; robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx; 
daniel.halloran@xxxxxxxxx; liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx; rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
vanda@xxxxxxxxxx; olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx; joette.youkhanna@xxxxxxxxx
To: carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx



Carlos,
I don't understand the points you are making this is the first point in aparent 
no coincidence, I will try my best to achieve you understanding. Is this 
something that we can discuss at some point I believe yes and highligted below 
, perhaps in the wrap-up at the end of the week sounds good for me, or 
privately if you prefer and then with your permission I could update the 
Council? thanks for ask, I think this point concern more people than us.

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. True. bylaws are 
very clear on this point. another true is: we have this rules are mandatory 
(after bylaws reviewed) since late 2010.
- JJ's note confirms this. Yes, but After that I asked his intervention on this 
issue. Before that, the rule was not considered by NomCom nor GNSO
- The bylaws do not say that a rotation should be introduced. True. but in this 
case is needed an interpretation, wich was given in a JJ`s note at the last 
part ".... it is important for the NomCom to complete the assignment process 
and identify the roles of the NCAs to the GNSO..... 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.
"- JJ's second note confirms this ("There is no requirement for rotation of the 
NomCom appointees among the three seats.") In this case is (IMHO) a 
contradiction in relation with his first note and the paragraph copied up. the 
first one have a complete sense to me. perhaps, one question would be good at 
this moment: What sense have, to have sit one person two years, without have 
the possibility to vote his own motion ?. Or if you consider this have sense, 
please clarify to me what is the sense in your understanding?,  and in this 
last case: Why always GNSO rotate (till now) the NCA`s ?
- The NomCom has made its assignments. True. But have no in account what Is 
said at the underlined paragraph up to this.
What I don't understand is where the gap in the process that you mention is? Te 
gap is/was GNSO forget or not know, the fact that there are another NCA`s in 
GNSO before appoint the two new, and the point highlighted "Due to the NomCom 
appointment rotation" of JJ`s original note.
Thanks for any help you can give me in understanding that. I hope my comments 
in red, help you to clarify my point of view on this issue


Stéphane




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 AguirreNCA GNSO Council - ICANN
former ALAC member by LACRALOAbogado - Especialista en Derecho de los 
NegociosSarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
http://ar.ageiadensi.org