ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] NCA assignments

  • To: "carlos dionisio aguirre" <carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] NCA assignments
  • From: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 07:04:18 -0700
  • Cc: 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, stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Web-Based Email 5.6.03

Personally, I think the NomCom should review the House assignments every
year instead of assigning an NCA to one House for two years, or an NCA
to non-voting for two years. That would allow changes to be made if/when
it is deemed appropriate. I don't think the bylaws preclude that.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [council] NCA assignments
From: carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, October 24, 2011 8:50 am
To: <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
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>,


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

Carlos Dionisio AguirreNCA 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

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


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

- 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
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


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
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
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 LACRALO
Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios
Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423

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