<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
<font style="font-size: 8pt;" size="1"><font style="font-size: 10pt;" size="2">Councilors: I`m Back on this issue, in my particular view it seems to me the situation is a serious one. We need to define it, because the transparency of the GNSO resolutions is on game. On the other side, there are not possibility to reach a consensus to violate bylaws, or decide something different against bylaws are saying, this is not legitimate nor legal in any system. In my opinion only possibility is to ask the NomCom finally act in the same line of the bylaws puting the NCA Councilors in each house or as homeless, clarifying there are another old NCA Councilor still without vote . The bylaws are very clear. I invite read again the specific rule :</font><font style="font-size: 10pt;" size="2"><br></font><br></font><font style=""><font style="font-size: 8pt;" size="1">"ARTICLE VII: NOMINATING COMMITTEE</font></font>
- <strong>Section 3. GNSO COUNCIL<br> </strong>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>, the GNSO Council shall consist of:
<blockquote>
<a name="X-3.1.a"></a>a. three representatives selected from the Registries Stakeholder Group;<BR>
<a name="X-3.1.b"></a>b. three representatives selected from the Registrars Stakeholder Group;<BR>
<a name="X-3.1.c"></a>c. six representatives selected from the Commercial Stakeholder Group;<BR>
<a name="X-3.1.d"></a>d. six representatives selected from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and<BR>
<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 shall be assigned to each House (as described in <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-3.8">Section 3(8) of this Article</a>) by the Nominating Committee."<BR><br><BR>
</blockquote>In my opinion there are not interpretation to do, because rule is extremely clear at last sentence of the paragraph. However, just in case, and in my personal capacity, I sent few days ago an email to the ICANN General Councel asking his opinion about it.<br><br>It seems to me, this could be a good action moving forward the discussion on this issue, in advance our next Dakar meeting. <br><br><br><h3><font face="Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Sans-serif">Carlos Dionisio Aguirre</font></h3>
<div>NCA GNSO Council - ICANN<br>former ALAC member by LACRALO</div>
<div>Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios</div>
<div>Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -<br>*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423<br><a href="http://ar.ageiadensi.org" target="_blank">http://ar.ageiadensi.org</a> <br></div><br><br><div><hr id="stopSpelling">Subject: Re: [council] Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to two Houses<br>From: stephane.vangelder@indom.com<br>Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:33:48 +0200<br>CC: council@gnso.icann.org<br>To: KnobenW@telekom.de<br><br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft SafeHTML">Thanks Wolf.<div><br></div><div>I will let you and the Council know if I hear back from the NomCom.</div><div><br><div>
<span class="ecxApple-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;font-size:medium"><div>Stéphane</div><div><br></div></span><br class="ecxApple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br><div><div>Le 27 sept. 2011 à 11:06, <<a href="mailto:KnobenW@telekom.de">KnobenW@telekom.de</a>> a écrit :</div><br class="ecxApple-interchange-newline"><blockquote>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="ecx163085008-27092011"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">Stéphane,</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="ecx163085008-27092011"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="ecx163085008-27092011"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">thanks for doing this.</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="ecx163085008-27092011"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="ecx163085008-27092011"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">My thinking is far from making things more complicate rather
than to find a solution being as close as possible to a consensus for all
involved.</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="ecx163085008-27092011"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="ecx163085008-27092011"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">We seem to have no input from the NomCom regarding the
assignment to a specific house, and since 2 NCAs apply for an NCPH assignment
there is ongoing discussion within and between the SGs represented in the
house.</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="ecx163085008-27092011"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"></font></span> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span class="ecx163085008-27092011"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2">I expect that this will lead to an agreement in
time.</font></span></div>
<div> </div><div style="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" class="ecxOutlookMessageHeader" align="left" lang="de">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><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>Stéphane Van
Gelder<br><b>Gesendet:</b> Montag, 26. September 2011 22:20<br><b>An:</b> GNSO
Council List<br><b>Betreff:</b> Re: [council] Nominating Committee Appointees
(NCA) selection to two Houses<br></font><br></div>
<div></div>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 style="widows:2;text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;border-collapse:separate;font:normal normal normal medium/normal Helvetica;white-space:normal;orphans:2;letter-spacing:normal;word-spacing:0px" class="ecxApple-style-span">
<div>Stéphane</div>
<div><br></div></span><br class="ecxApple-interchange-newline"></div><br>
<div>
<div>Le 26 sept. 2011 à 22:12, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :</div><br class="ecxApple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">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 style="widows:2;text-transform:none;text-indent:0px;border-collapse:separate;font:medium Helvetica;white-space:normal;orphans:2;letter-spacing:normal;word-spacing:0px" class="ecxApple-style-span">
<div>Stéphane</div>
<div><br></div></span><br class="ecxApple-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="ecxApple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><span class="ecx854210515-26092011">Thanks Alan for clarification from a NomCom
perspective which is important to know.</span></font></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><span class="ecx854210515-26092011"></span></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><span class="ecx854210515-26092011">I understand there will be 2 choices for the
future:</span></font></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><span class="ecx854210515-26092011">- 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" face="Arial" size="2"><span class="ecx854210515-26092011">- 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" face="Arial" size="2"><span class="ecx854210515-26092011"></span></font> </div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><font color="#0000ff" face="Arial" size="2"><span class="ecx854210515-26092011">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-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" class="ecxOutlookMessageHeader" align="left" lang="de">
<hr tabindex="-1">
<font face="Tahoma" size="2"><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" target="_blank">
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/">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" target="_blank"></a>1. Subject to the provisions of <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XX-5" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">Section 5 of
Article X</a><a name="X-3.1" target="_blank"></a>, the GNSO Council shall consist
of:<br>
<dl>
<dd><a name="X-3.1.a" target="_blank"></a>a. three representatives selected from the
Registries Stakeholder Group;<br>
</dd><dd><a name="X-3.1.b" target="_blank"></a>b<a name="X-3.1.b" target="_blank"></a>. three
representatives selected from the Registrars Stakeholder
Group;<br>
</dd><dd><a name="X-3.1.c" target="_blank"></a>c<a name="X-3.1.c" target="_blank"></a>. six representatives
selected from the Commercial Stakeholder Group;<br>
</dd><dd><a name="X-3.1.d" target="_blank"></a>d<a name="X-3.1.d" target="_blank"></a>. six representatives
selected from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and<br>
</dd><dd><a name="X-3.1.e" target="_blank"></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" target="_blank">Section
3(8) of this Article</a>) <font color="#c00000">by the Nominating
Committee.</font><a name="X-3.1.e" target="_blank"></a><br><br></dd></dl></dd></dl><br>Kind regards.
<br><br>
<h3><font face="Verdana" size="5"><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/" target="_blank">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">
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/" target="_blank">http://gnso.icann.org</a><br>> <br>>
</blockquote></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div> </div></body>
</html>