[council] Appointment of NCA to Houses

[Avri Doria]

I followed the process set by this council
Twice.

It was time for them to be part of the Houses so they could  
participate in coming up with the House candidates for Chair.
To do otherwise would be to deprive them of their particpation rights.

I suppose you can appeal my action to the SIC.

a.

On 15 Oct 2009, at 20:35, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> I think notifying the SIC was premature. The process calls for the
> Council to acknowledge and confirm the results. That implies to me a
> formal action.
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
> From: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
> Date: Thu, October 15, 2009 1:22 pm
> To: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> This occurred during the part of the call where I was off line and the
> call was being chaired by Chuck. when I came back on the cal I asked
> for clarification of what had been decided.
>
> Chuck confirmed in an earlier message that this was the case. I
> expect it was a consent sort of thing where no one objected, they way
> the council has made all of it consensus decisions.
>
> I would note, that I have informed the SIC of the decision on NCA
> placement as I indicated I would in my first message on this topic
> this morning. I believe the decision is made and it is time to move  
> on.
>
> a.
>
>
>
> On 15 Oct 2009, at 20:07, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>
>>> the council agreed to a process of unanimous consent on the extended
>>> 'negotiations' and you did not get unanimous consent.
>>
>> When did we do this? Was it a vote, or a respond if you object kind  
>> of
>> thing?
>>
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
>> From: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
>> Date: Thu, October 15, 2009 11:36 am
>> To: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The problems are:
>>
>> - the request for an extension of time was not madeuntil after the
>> drawing happened, thus making the request something that happened
>> after the the decision was made.
>>
>> - the council agreed to a process of unanimous consent on the  
>> extended
>> 'negotiations' and you did not get unanimous consent.
>>
>> a.
>>
>> On 15 Oct 2009, at 18:25, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The only aspect of the agreed process that was not met is the
>>> timeline.
>>> We routinely stretch timelines, even those mandated in bylaws. I
>>> certainly did not understand the process to mean we had to reach
>>> unanimity. When do we ever expect that?
>>>
>>> The fact of the matter is that three of the four SGs agreed on an
>>> assignment plan. That plan puts Terry where he prefers and Olga
>>> seemed
>>> flexible. It does put Andrei in the seat he would prefer not to  
>>> have,
>>> but he is the newest NCA. I don't see that as unreasonable.
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
>>> From: William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
>>> Date: Thu, October 15, 2009 10:57 am
>>> To: Stéphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
>>> Cc: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>