Re: [council] NCA assignments

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

My understanding from the NomCom is that they appoint 1 NCA one year and 2 NCAs 
the following year, but that they will provide 3 assignments every single year.

Stéphane



Le 24 oct. 2011 à 16:04, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

> 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.
> 
> 
> Tim  
> 
> -------- 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>,
> <joette.youkhanna@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Stephane, 
> 
> 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
> 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 LACRALO
> Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios
> Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
> *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
> http://ar.ageiadensi.org
>