[council] RE: Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to two Houses

Mon Sep 26 22:29:46 UTC 2011

Dear Allan:
I can agree with you that the norm is ill and probably dead in the next revision.
I particularly never accepted the fact of one GNSO Councilor have the same responsabilities of others but without vote, for me is ridiculous.
But right now is a rule inside bylaws, mandatory and, if not fulfil is unexcusable and unlegal.
The consensus to change the procedure, in this case was/is not applicable, because are not only two parts CPH & NCPH or GNSO & NomCom.
Consensus is a good solution if there are only two parts and the consecuences or effects only affect the two parts in agreement, This case is VERY different , it is a general rule who touch and involve at whole ICANN community, and its effects are also for all ICANN Community.
So, the violation or unvoluntary mistake, now and in the past, was/is not correct ( legal?), and in this case at least in my legislative system,  all facts made or executed under this kind of "unvoluntary mistake or violation" are null. So at least all the resolutions made by GNSO would be under revision after last bylaws  revision (repeat, at least in my legislative system). 
Obviously this is the extreme case, but we need to find a effective solution, and it seems to me,  following with this wrong procedure is not the correct way. 
Is for me, a very sensitive issue and no easy to resolve. I think there are responsabilities from NomCom and GNSO, Specially who knew (or have to) and acted in the same manner.
I think this issue goes against the credibility of all in ICANN, have to do with my ethics as lawyer and for that I have the obligation to show, and have to do with the transparency of every act inside GNSO.  Please dont take my words like insult to nobody , I only want to bring my point of view and my best intentions to solve this of the best manner.
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 

Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 10:51:03 -0400
To: council at gnso.icann.org
From: alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Subject: RE: [council] RE: Nominating Committee Appointees  (NCA)  selection to two Houses

The Bylaws do indeed assign the responsibility to the NomCom, but the
NomCom has never acted on that. In 2009, when the appointment was made
prior to the new Bylaws, a procedure was adopted by Council
(
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-24sep09.htm, Item 5,
motion section 10). This called for the SGs to reach consensus (taking
into consideration the wishes of the NCAs) by a certain date, or the
single fresh GNSO NCA would be assigned to the non-voting position and
the other two would be assigned by random selection. My recollection is
that consensus was not reached and the random method was used.

Last year, without a NomCom explicit decision, all parties came to an
agreement and the matter was not further discussed.

My personal position is that the Bylaw wording was ill-advised because by
following this rule ensures that once put in a specific position, the NCA
is their for the duration of their term. In the case of the non-voting
position, I find this unreasonable.

So Carlos is correct about the Bylaw provision, but in the absence of the
NomCom acting on it, there is no established procedure and no precedent
on which to rely - the 2009 interim rules do not apply with two incoming
inexperienced NCAs and agreement had not been reached as in 2010.

One could infer from the 2009 interim rules that if there was an
inexperienced incoming NCA, that person should be given the non-voting
role and I believe that this is the what Glen referred to as the norm.
However, neither precedent provides any firm guidance regarding this
year's case where there are two inexperienced incoming NCAs.

Alan

At 26/09/2011 09:47 AM, carlos dionisio aguirre wrote:

Dear kristina: There are a
"norm" , the ICANN Bylaws are mandatory and clearly decide
about the situation 

 Section 3. GNSO COUNCIL 

1. Subject to the provisions of
Transition
Article XX, Section 5 of these Bylaws and as described in
Section 5 of
Article X, the GNSO Council shall consist
of:

a. three representatives selected from the
Registries Stakeholder Group;

b. three representatives
selected from the Registrars Stakeholder Group;

c. six representatives
selected from the Commercial Stakeholder Group;

d. six representatives
selected from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group; and

e. three representatives selected by the ICANN
Nominating Committee, one of which shall be non-voting, but otherwise
entitled to participate on equal footing with other members of the GNSO
Council including, e.g. the making and seconding of motions and of
serving as Chair if elected. One Nominating Committee Appointee voting
representative shall be assigned to each
House (as described in
Section 3(8)
of this Article) by the Nominating
Committee.

Kind regards. 

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 

> From: krosette at cov.com

> To: Glen at icann.org; council at gnso.icann.org

> CC: robert.hoggarth at icann.org; stephane.vangelder at indom.com;
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org

> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:35:07 -0400

> Subject: [council] RE: Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA)
selection to two Houses

> 

> 

> I don't believe it's correct to say that there has been any
"norm" as I don't think we've been doing this long enough to
say there is. It's my recollection that any pattern you describe is due
primarily to an incoming NCA deferring to the preference of an existing
NCA. As both Lanre and Carlos would like to be assigned to NCPH, this is
a matter for the NCPH to address, in my opinion. 

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[
mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint
Géry

> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 5:27 AM

> To: council at gnso.icann.org

> Cc: Robert Hoggarth; Stéphane Van Gelder;
gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org

> Subject: [council] Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection
to two Houses

> 

> 

> Dear All,

> 

> As you know, the Nominating Committee (Nom Com) has selected two Nom
Com Appointees (NCAs), Lanre Ajayi and Thomas Rickert, to serve on the
GNSO Council for the upcoming year.

> 

> Thomas Rickert has requested to be assigned to the Contracted
Parties House (CPH) and the CPH has formally agreed that Thomas is a
voting member in the CPH.

> 

> As it has traditionally been the norm that the previous year's
non-voting NCA becomes a voting NCA, we expect that Carlos Aguirre will
be assigned to the NCPH this year, and Lanre Ajayi will be assigned the
non-voting seat.

> 

> Is this correct? Due to the close proximity of the Dakar meeting and
the need to finalize organizational aspects of the meeting, the GNSO
Council Secretariat would appreciate being informed of the NCPH NCA
assignment no later than 30 September 2011 at 22:00 UTC.

> 

> Thank you very much.

> Kind regards,

> 

> Glen

> 

> 

> Glen de Saint Géry

> GNSO Secretariat

> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org

>

http://gnso.icann.org

> 

>  		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20110926/71d22a6d/attachment.html>