<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Putting my Chair hat back on, I have sent an email to the current NomCom Chair, Adam Peake, asking him if he has any advice for the Council on this.<div><br></div><div>I will of course let you know when he responds.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div><br><div><div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div>Stéphane</div><div><br></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br><div><div>Le 26 sept. 2011 à 22:12, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I think Alan's summary is spot on. But in my personal opinion, it is not the case that there are only 2 options going forward as you suggest Wolf-Ulrich.<div><br></div><div><div>The Council is already knee deep in process on so many things, we may not wish to add another layer.</div><div><br></div><div>I agree with you that we may need to do so, but why don't we wait to see if there is a problem dealing with the NCPH NCA assignment this year before deciding on that?</div><div><br></div><div>So far, as Alan describes, the NCA assignments have been made through discussion between the houses and the NCAs, and everyone has been able to agree and reach a result that suited.</div><div><br></div><div>Do you expect this not to be the case this year?</div><div><br></div><div><div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div>Stéphane</div><div><br></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br><div><div>Le 26 sept. 2011 à 17:23, <<a href="mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de">KnobenW@telekom.de</a>> a écrit :</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19120">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"><span class="854210515-26092011">Thanks Alan for clarification from a NomCom perspective
which is important to know.</span></font></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"><span class="854210515-26092011"></span></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"><span class="854210515-26092011">I understand there will be 2 choices for the
future:</span></font></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"><span class="854210515-26092011">- either the NomCom shall act according to the bylaws
and assign the NCAs to the houses, meaning <u>all</u> 3 NCAs <u>every</u>
year</span></font></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"><span class="854210515-26092011">- or in case the NomCom doesn't assign the SG's should
find consensus, meaning a process has to be defined in this respect. This could
be a job for the SCI if the council agrees.</span></font></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"><span class="854210515-26092011"></span></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font color="#0000ff" size="2" face="Arial"><span class="854210515-26092011">For the present case let's find consensus. This may
require some coordination on SG and house level</span></font></div>
<div> </div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; font-size: 10pt; "><font color="#000000" face="arial">Kind regards<br>Wolf-Ulrich </font></div><br>
<blockquote style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr" lang="de" class="OutlookMessageHeader" align="left">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<font size="2" face="Tahoma"><b>Von:</b> <a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>
[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] <b>Im Auftrag von </b>Alan
Greenberg<br><b>Gesendet:</b> Montag, 26. September 2011 16:51<br><b>An:</b>
GNSO Council<br><b>Betreff:</b> RE: [council] RE: Nominating Committee
Appointees (NCA) selection to two Houses<br></font><br></div>
<div></div>The Bylaws do indeed assign the responsibility to the NomCom, but
the NomCom has never acted on that. In 2009, when the appointment was made
prior to the new Bylaws, a procedure was adopted by Council (<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-24sep09.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-24sep09.htm</a>, Item 5, motion
section 10). This called for the SGs to reach consensus (taking into
consideration the wishes of the NCAs) by a certain date, or the single fresh
GNSO NCA would be assigned to the non-voting position and the other two would
be assigned by random selection. My recollection is that consensus was not
reached and the random method was used.<br><br>Last year, without a NomCom
explicit decision, all parties came to an agreement and the matter was not
further discussed.<br><br>My personal position is that the Bylaw wording was
ill-advised because by following this rule ensures that once put in a specific
position, the NCA is their for the duration of their term. In the case of the
non-voting position, I find this unreasonable.<br><br>So Carlos is correct
about the Bylaw provision, but in the absence of the NomCom acting on it,
there is no established procedure and no precedent on which to rely - the 2009
interim rules do not apply with two incoming inexperienced NCAs and agreement
had not been reached as in 2010. <br><br>One could infer from the 2009 interim
rules that if there was an inexperienced incoming NCA, that person should be
given the non-voting role and I believe that this is the what Glen referred to
as the norm. However, neither precedent provides any firm guidance regarding
this year's case where there are two inexperienced incoming
NCAs.<br><br>Alan<br><br><br>At 26/09/2011 09:47 AM, carlos dionisio aguirre
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="cite" cite="x-msg://669/" type="cite">Dear kristina: There are a "norm"
, the ICANN Bylaws are mandatory and clearly decide about the situation
<br><br> <b>Section 3. GNSO COUNCIL</b> <br>
<dl>
<dd><a name="X-3.1"></a>1. Subject to the provisions of <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XX-5">Transition Article
XX, Section 5 of these Bylaws</a> and as described in <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5">Section 5 of Article
X</a><a name="X-3.1"></a>, the GNSO Council shall consist of:<br>
<dl>
<dd><a name="X-3.1.a"></a>a. three representatives selected from the
Registries Stakeholder Group;<br>
</dd><dd><a name="X-3.1.b"></a>b<a name="X-3.1.b"></a>. three representatives
selected from the Registrars Stakeholder Group;<br>
</dd><dd><a name="X-3.1.c"></a>c<a name="X-3.1.c"></a>. six representatives
selected from the Commercial Stakeholder Group;<br>
</dd><dd><a name="X-3.1.d"></a>d<a name="X-3.1.d"></a>. six representatives
selected from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and<br>
</dd><dd><a name="X-3.1.e"></a>e. three representatives selected by the ICANN
Nominating Committee, one of which shall be non-voting, but otherwise
entitled to participate on equal footing with other members of the GNSO
Council including, e.g. the making and seconding of motions and of
serving as Chair if elected. One Nominating Committee Appointee voting
representative<font color="#c00000"> shall be assigned to each
House</font> (as described in <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-3.8">Section 3(8) of
this Article</a>) <font color="#c00000">by the Nominating
Committee.</font><a name="X-3.1.e"></a><br><br></dd></dl></dd></dl><br>Kind
regards. <br><br>
<h3><font size="5" face="Verdana"><b>Carlos Dionisio
Aguirre</b></font></h3><br><br>NCA GNSO Council - ICANN<br>former ALAC
member by LACRALO<br>Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los
Negocios<br>Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -<br>*54-351-424-2123
/ 423-5423<br><a href="http://ar.ageiadensi.org/">http://ar.ageiadensi.org</a>
<br><br><br>> From: <a href="mailto:krosette@cov.com">krosette@cov.com</a><br>> To: <a href="mailto:Glen@icann.org">Glen@icann.org</a>;
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>> CC: <a href="mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org">robert.hoggarth@icann.org</a>;
<a href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com">stephane.vangelder@indom.com</a>; <a href="mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org">gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org</a><br>> Date:
Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:35:07 -0400<br>> Subject: [council] RE: Nominating
Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to two Houses<br>> <br>> <br>>
I don't believe it's correct to say that there has been any "norm" as I
don't think we've been doing this long enough to say there is. It's my
recollection that any pattern you describe is due primarily to an incoming
NCA deferring to the preference of an existing NCA. As both Lanre and Carlos
would like to be assigned to NCPH, this is a matter for the NCPH to address,
in my opinion. <br>> <br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From:
<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org">owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a> [<a href="mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl"> mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Glen
de Saint Géry<br>> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 5:27 AM<br>> To:
<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a><br>> Cc: Robert Hoggarth; Stéphane Van Gelder;
<a href="mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org">gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org</a><br>> Subject: [council] Nominating
Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to two Houses<br>> <br>> <br>>
Dear All,<br>> <br>> As you know, the Nominating Committee (Nom Com)
has selected two Nom Com Appointees (NCAs), Lanre Ajayi and Thomas Rickert,
to serve on the GNSO Council for the upcoming year.<br>> <br>> Thomas
Rickert has requested to be assigned to the Contracted Parties House (CPH)
and the CPH has formally agreed that Thomas is a voting member in the
CPH.<br>> <br>> As it has traditionally been the norm that the
previous year's non-voting NCA becomes a voting NCA, we expect that Carlos
Aguirre will be assigned to the NCPH this year, and Lanre Ajayi will be
assigned the non-voting seat.<br>> <br>> Is this correct? Due to the
close proximity of the Dakar meeting and the need to finalize organizational
aspects of the meeting, the GNSO Council Secretariat would appreciate being
informed of the NCPH NCA assignment no later than 30 September 2011 at 22:00
UTC.<br>> <br>> Thank you very much.<br>> Kind regards,<br>>
<br>> Glen<br>> <br>> <br>> Glen de Saint Géry<br>> GNSO
Secretariat<br>> <a href="mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org">gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org</a><br>> <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/" eudora="autourl">http://gnso.icann.org</a><br>> <br>>
</blockquote></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>