My understanding from the NomCom is that they appoint 1 NCA one year and 2 NCAs the following year, but that they will provide 3 assignments every single year.

Stéphane



Le 24 oct. 2011 à 16:04, Tim Ruiz a écrit :

Personally, I think the NomCom should review the House assignments every

year instead of assigning an NCA to one House for two years, or an NCA

to non-voting for two years. That would allow changes to be made if/when

it is deemed appropriate. I don't think the bylaws preclude that.

Tim  

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: RE: [council] NCA assignments

From: carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com>

Date: Mon, October 24, 2011 8:50 am

To: <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>

Cc: <tim@godaddy.com>, <council@gnso.icann.org>,

<john.jeffrey@icann.org>, Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp>,

<samantha.eisner@icann.org>, <robert.hoggarth@icann.org>,

<daniel.halloran@icann.org>, <liz.gasster@icann.org>,

<rob@momentous.com>, <vanda@uol.com.br>, <olof.nordling@icann.org>,

<joette.youkhanna@icann.org>

Stephane,

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

Carlos Dionisio AguirreNCA 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@indom.com

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 12:21:45 +0200

CC: tim@godaddy.com; council@gnso.icann.org; john.jeffrey@icann.org;

ajp@glocom.ac.jp; samantha.eisner@icann.org; robert.hoggarth@icann.org;

daniel.halloran@icann.org; liz.gasster@icann.org; rob@momentous.com;

vanda@uol.com.br; olof.nordling@icann.org; joette.youkhanna@icann.org

To: carlosaguirre62@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 LACRALO

Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios

Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina -

*54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423

http://ar.ageiadensi.org