<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Just a note on this discussion. Each Nominating Committee is a newly formed entity and has continually evolving membership. <div><br></div><div>Currently the Nominating Committee is only seeking and assessing new candidates for appointments, but this would require that each Nominating Committee perform a different function. <div><br></div><div><div>As each Nominating Committee reforms, it would have the impact of having each Nominating Committee re-learn (or maybe even assess) the previous Nominating Committees appointments to effectively assign them.<div><br><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: -webkit-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>John Jeffrey<br>General Counsel & Secretary<br>ICANN<br>4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330<br>Marina del Rey, CA USA 90292<br>direct dial - +1.310.301.5834<br>mobile - +1.310.404.6001<br><a href="mailto:JJ@ICANN.org">JJ@ICANN.org</a></div></span>
</div>
<br><div><div>On Oct 24, 2011, at 2:15 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>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.<br><br>Stéphane<br><br><br><br>Le 24 oct. 2011 à 16:04, Tim Ruiz a écrit :<br><br><blockquote type="cite">Personally, I think the NomCom should review the House assignments every<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">year instead of assigning an NCA to one House for two years, or an NCA<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">to non-voting for two years. That would allow changes to be made if/when<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">it is deemed appropriate. I don't think the bylaws preclude that.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Tim <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">-------- Original Message --------<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Subject: RE: [council] NCA assignments<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">From: carlos dionisio aguirre <<a href="mailto:carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com">carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com</a>><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Date: Mon, October 24, 2011 8:50 am<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To: <<a href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com">stephane.vangelder@indom.com</a>><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Cc: <<a href="mailto:tim@godaddy.com">tim@godaddy.com</a>>, <<a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>>,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><<a href="mailto:john.jeffrey@icann.org">john.jeffrey@icann.org</a>>, Adam Peake <<a href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp">ajp@glocom.ac.jp</a>>,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><<a href="mailto:samantha.eisner@icann.org">samantha.eisner@icann.org</a>>, <<a href="mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org">robert.hoggarth@icann.org</a>>,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><<a href="mailto:daniel.halloran@icann.org">daniel.halloran@icann.org</a>>, <<a href="mailto:liz.gasster@icann.org">liz.gasster@icann.org</a>>,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><<a href="mailto:rob@momentous.com">rob@momentous.com</a>>, <<a href="mailto:vanda@uol.com.br">vanda@uol.com.br</a>>, <<a href="mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org">olof.nordling@icann.org</a>>,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><<a href="mailto:joette.youkhanna@icann.org">joette.youkhanna@icann.org</a>><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Stephane, <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">my answers to you in red below. thanks to ask me <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Carlos Dionisio AguirreNCA GNSO Council - ICANN<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">former ALAC member by LACRALO<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://ar.ageiadensi.org">http://ar.ageiadensi.org</a> <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Subject: Re: [council] NCA assignments<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">From: <a href="mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com">stephane.vangelder@indom.com</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:21:45 +0200<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">CC: <a href="mailto:tim@godaddy.com">tim@godaddy.com</a>; <a href="mailto:council@gnso.icann.org">council@gnso.icann.org</a>; <a href="mailto:john.jeffrey@icann.org">john.jeffrey@icann.org</a>;<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp">ajp@glocom.ac.jp</a>; <a href="mailto:samantha.eisner@icann.org">samantha.eisner@icann.org</a>; <a href="mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org">robert.hoggarth@icann.org</a>;<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:daniel.halloran@icann.org">daniel.halloran@icann.org</a>; <a href="mailto:liz.gasster@icann.org">liz.gasster@icann.org</a>; <a href="mailto:rob@momentous.com">rob@momentous.com</a>;<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="mailto:vanda@uol.com.br">vanda@uol.com.br</a>; <a href="mailto:olof.nordling@icann.org">olof.nordling@icann.org</a>; <a href="mailto:joette.youkhanna@icann.org">joette.youkhanna@icann.org</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">To: <a href="mailto:carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com">carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Carlos,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I don't understand the points you are making this is the first point in<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">aparent no coincidence, I will try my best to achieve you understanding.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Is this something that we can discuss at some point I believe yes and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">highligted below , perhaps in the wrap-up at the end of the week sounds<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">good for me, or privately if you prefer and then with your permission I<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">could update the Council? thanks for ask, I think this point concern<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">more people than us.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I am not saying that your points are wrong , just that I would like to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">get more clarity on exactly what it is your are saying went wrong.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">My understanding so far:<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">- The bylaws say that the NomCom shall make the appointments. True.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">bylaws are very clear on this point. another true is: we have this rules<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">are mandatory (after bylaws reviewed) since late 2010.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">- JJ's note confirms this. Yes, but After that I asked his intervention<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">on this issue. Before that, the rule was not considered by NomCom nor<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">GNSO<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">- The bylaws do not say that a rotation should be introduced. True. but<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">in this case is needed an interpretation, wich was given in a JJ`s note<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">at the last part ".... it is important for the NomCom to complete the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">assignment process and identify the roles of the NCAs to the GNSO.....<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Due to the NomCom’s appointment rotation (2 NCAs to the GNSO in odd<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">years, 1 NCA in even years), it may be beneficial for the NomCom and<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">GNSO to consult together to determine if the GNSO would be better served<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">by having both voting NCAs rotate at the same time, or if it is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">preferable to have 1 voting and 1 non-voting NCA rotate at the same<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">time, with the term of the other voting NCA rotating in even years. <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Further, as the NomCom and the GNSO continue dialogue on identifying<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">skill sets for the NCAs to the GNSO, skills desirable for each role<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">(Non-Contracted House NCA, Contracted House NCA and Non-Voting NCA)<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">could be identified for NomCom consideration.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">"- JJ's second note confirms this ("There is no requirement for rotation<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">of the NomCom appointees among the three seats.") In this case is (IMHO)<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">a contradiction in relation with his first note and the paragraph copied<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">up. the first one have a complete sense to me. perhaps, one question<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">would be good at this moment: What sense have, to have sit one person<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">two years, without have the possibility to vote his own motion ?. Or if<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">you consider this have sense, please clarify to me what is the sense in<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">your understanding?, and in this last case: Why always GNSO rotate<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">(till now) the NCA`s ?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">- The NomCom has made its assignments. True. But have no in account what<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Is said at the underlined paragraph up to this.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">What I don't understand is where the gap in the process that you mention<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">is? Te gap is/was GNSO forget or not know, the fact that there are<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">another NCA`s in GNSO before appoint the two new, and the point<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">highlighted "Due to the NomCom appointment rotation" of JJ`s original<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">note.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Thanks for any help you can give me in understanding that. I hope my<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">comments in red, help you to clarify my point of view on this issue<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Stéphane<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Le 24 oct. 2011 à 11:43, carlos dionisio aguirre a écrit :<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Thanks Tim for your comment. <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I understand very well, the idea to remain this discussion open is not<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">for me only, and particularly, I know How many contributions I can do<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">from my current position, this is one of this.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I saw a serious gap in the procedure, because bylaws were saying<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">different things. In this order I ask for the advice of General Councel.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The advice was made, but the application in the reality IMHO was bad<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">done.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">The application of the advice given by JJ not give a permanent solution,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">or give a bad solution at least for some interests. <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">May be is needed a deep discussion to get a common understanding , for<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">all grups and people involved, to determine and clarify waht will be the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">procedure in the future.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I particular consider " the differences disappear talking", and is what<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I am promoting, because I feel in this case we have have not a enough<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">comunication to solve this properly, some people and constituencies<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">were not contacted, and their opinion must be hear (in relation with the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">aplication of advice given by JJ), just because their interests count<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">also. The advice of General Councel was in this way, specially the last<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">paragraph, but only some parts were contacted to reach a general<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">consensus.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Thanks again Tim, and want to say that more than a problem is a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">possibility to have a permanent solution for this issue, and in perfect<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">agreement with bylaws and the authorized interpretation given by JJ,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">and the understanding of the parts interested on this.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Also and finally (at least for now) I want to say: This situation was<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">not caused by me, The situation have another origin, and you know that.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Thanks again. And I am sure you and me are following the same, a good,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">agreed and permanent solution on this issue and in strict relation with<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">ICANN bylaws <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Carlos Dionisio AguirreNCA GNSO Council - ICANN<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">former ALAC member by LACRALO<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="http://ar.ageiadensi.org">http://ar.ageiadensi.org</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></body></html>