[council] NCA assignments

Mon Oct 24 13:50:40 UTC 2011

Stephane, 

my answers to you in red below. thanks to ask me 

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 

Subject: Re: [council] NCA assignments
From: stephane.vangelder at indom.com
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:21:45 +0200
CC: tim at godaddy.com; council at gnso.icann.org; john.jeffrey at icann.org; ajp at glocom.ac.jp; samantha.eisner at icann.org; robert.hoggarth at icann.org; daniel.halloran at icann.org; liz.gasster at icann.org; rob at momentous.com; vanda at uol.com.br; olof.nordling at icann.org; joette.youkhanna at icann.org
To: carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com

Carlos,
I don't understand the points you are making this is the first point in aparent no coincidence, I will try my best to achieve you understanding. Is this something that we can discuss at some point I believe yes and highligted below , perhaps in the wrap-up at the end of the week sounds good for me, or privately if you prefer and then with your permission I could update the Council? thanks for ask, I think this point concern more people than us.

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. True. bylaws are very clear on this point. another true is: we have this rules are mandatory (after bylaws reviewed) since late 2010.
- JJ's note confirms this. Yes, but After that I asked his intervention on this issue. Before that, the rule was not considered by NomCom nor GNSO
- The bylaws do not say that a rotation should be introduced. True. but in this case is needed an interpretation, wich was given in a JJ`s note at the last part ".... it is important for the NomCom to complete the assignment process and identify the roles of the NCAs to the GNSO..... Due to the NomCom’s appointment rotation (2 NCAs to the GNSO in odd 
years, 1 NCA in even years), it may be beneficial for the NomCom and 
GNSO to consult together to determine if the GNSO would be better served
by having both voting NCAs rotate at the same time, or if it is 
preferable to have 1 voting and 1 non-voting NCA rotate at the same 
time, with the term of the other voting NCA rotating in even years.  
Further, as the NomCom and the GNSO continue dialogue on
identifying skill sets for the NCAs to the GNSO, skills desirable for 
each role (Non-Contracted House NCA, Contracted House NCA and Non-Voting
 NCA) could be identified for NomCom consideration.
"- JJ's second note confirms this ("There is no requirement for rotation of the NomCom appointees among the three seats.") In this case is (IMHO) a contradiction in relation with his first note and the paragraph copied up. the first one have a complete sense to me. perhaps, one question would be good at this moment: What sense have, to have sit one person two years, without have the possibility to vote his own motion ?. Or if you consider this have sense, please clarify to me what is the sense in your understanding?,  and in this last case: Why always GNSO rotate (till now) the NCA`s ?
- The NomCom has made its assignments. True. But have no in account what Is said at the underlined paragraph up to this.
What I don't understand is where the gap in the process that you mention is? Te gap is/was GNSO forget or not know, the fact that there are another NCA`s in GNSO before appoint the two new, and the point highlighted "Due to the NomCom appointment rotation" of JJ`s original note.
Thanks for any help you can give me in understanding that. I hope my comments in red, help you to clarify my point of view on this issue

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 AguirreNCA GNSO Council - ICANN
former ALAC member by LACRALOAbogado - Especialista en Derecho de los NegociosSarmiento 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/e48e0abc/attachment.html>