[council] Appointment of NCA to Houses

[Stéphane Van Gelder]

Thanks Terry, that is very helpful.

Stéphane


Le 15/10/09 18:42, « Terry L Davis, P.E. » <tdavis2 at speakeasy.net> a écrit :

> 
> Stephane
> 
> Just for clarity, on this which I should have clarified earlier:
>> Terry indicated he was only willing to be placed the Non-contracted
>> parties house
> 
> That was my preference (most interested in), I was (and am) more than
> willing take whichever position the Council selected me for.
> 
> See you in Seoul.
> 
> Take care
> Terry
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
> Behalf Of William Drake
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:58 AM
> To: Stéphane Van Gelder
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
> 
> 
> Hi Stéphane,
> 
> The agreed process has played out and there's not much to be gained by
> challenging each other's preferences, or the value of consensus
> processes.  However, I would simply like to understand FMI what you're
> saying here.  May I pose four questions, please:
> 
> On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> 
>> This means that, despite the overall support of the SGs for a
>> solution which
>> was also inline with what the NCAs wanted themselves, we opt for the
>> solution that suits only one SG. Hardly seems fair.
>> 
>> I really think we should try and honour the NCAs' wishes if we can,
>> and the
>> proposed option 1 did that.
> 
> First, the NCA's wishes, as recounted by Avri on Sept. 29, were as
> follows:
> 
>> 
>> Olga and Andrey were both interested in the Contracted Parties House
>> 
>> All three of them were willing to be placed in the Non-Contracted
>> parties house.
>> Terry indicated he was only willing to be placed the Non-contracted
>> parties house
>> 
>> Olga was the only one indicating willingness to take the Independent
>> non voting role
> 
> So Olga was willing to take any of the three, and made clear on the
> last council call that she'd be perfectly happy with non-contracted.
> And under the RySG option 1, Andrei was to be given the non-voting
> seat, which he clearly did not want.  So on what basis can it be said
> that RySG option 1 was uniquely in line with the NCAs' wishes?
> 
> Second, if satisfying the NCAs was your overarching concern (and
> again, your preferred solution did not in fact do this), then why did
> the RrSG wait from Sept. 29 to Oct. 14 to express a preference?   You
> had two full weeks to take a stand for that principle, but said
> nothing until after NCSG stated the horridly unjust view that we
> should do what we agreed to do.
> 
> Third, since you're running for chair, I'd much appreciate it if you
> could share your views on whether, as a general matter, the council is
> obliged to abide by the rules and procedures it agrees for itself.
> Are these binding, or can they be tossed aside or worked around (e.g.
> through external lobbying) whenever they prove inconvenient to someone?
> 
> Fourth, in terms of substantive outcomes, do you feel it would have
> been much better signaling to the ICANN community and the larger world
> if all three candidates for chair had been from the contracted house?
> 
> Sorry to be slow, I'm just trying to understand your thinking.
> 
> Thanks much,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2161 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20091015/e464be96/smime.p7s>