[council] NCA assignments

Mon Oct 24 10:21:45 UTC 2011

Carlos,

I don't understand the points you are making. Is this something that we can discuss at some point, perhaps in the wrap-up at the end of the week, or privately if you prefer and then with your permission I could update the Council?

I am not saying that your points are wrong, just that I would like to get more clarity on exactly what it is your are saying went wrong.

My understanding so far:

- The bylaws say that the NomCom shall make the appointments.
- JJ's note confirms this.
- The bylaws do not say that a rotation should be introduced.
- JJ's second note confirms this ("There is no requirement for rotation of the NomCom appointees among the three seats.")
- The NomCom has made its assignments.

What I don't understand is where the gap in the process that you mention is?

Thanks for any help you can give me in understanding that.

Stéphane

Le 24 oct. 2011 à 11:43, carlos dionisio aguirre a écrit :

> Thanks Tim for your comment. 
> I understand very well, the idea to remain this discussion open is not for me only, and particularly, I know How many contributions I can do from my current position, this is one of this.
> I saw a serious gap in the procedure, because bylaws were saying different things. In this order I ask for the advice of General Councel.
> The advice was made, but the application in the reality IMHO was bad done.
> The application of the advice given by JJ not give a permanent solution, or give a bad solution at least for some interests. 
> May be is needed a deep discussion to get a common understanding , for all grups and people involved, to determine and clarify waht will be the procedure in the future.
> I particular consider " the differences disappear talking", and is what I am promoting, because I feel in this case we have have not a enough comunication to solve this properly,  some people and constituencies were not contacted, and their opinion must be hear (in relation with the aplication of advice given by JJ), just because their interests count also. The advice of General Councel was in this way, specially the last paragraph, but only some parts were contacted to reach a general consensus.
> Thanks again Tim, and want to say that more than a problem is a possibility to have a permanent solution for this issue,  and in perfect agreement with bylaws  and the authorized interpretation given by JJ, and the understanding of the parts interested on this.
> Also and finally (at least for now) I want to say:  This situation was not caused by me, The situation have another origin, and you know that.
> 
> Thanks again. And I am sure you and me are following the same, a good, agreed and permanent solution on this issue and in strict relation with ICANN bylaws 
> 
> 
> Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
> NCA GNSO Council - ICANN
> former ALAC member by LACRALO
> Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios
> Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -
> *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423
> http://ar.ageiadensi.org 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20111024/b297a61c/attachment.html>