see my additional comments below. (I have *not* yet gotten IPC input - these are my personal comments.) It seems reasonable to require that we have current Statements of Interest from each of the NCA appointees before making a decision ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 10:24 AM To: Olga Cavalli Cc: GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] NCAs in the new GNSO Council structure Thanks Olga for the input. Please see my responses below. Chuck ________________________________ From: olgacavalli@gmail.com [mailto:olgacavalli@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 10:04 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] NCAs in the new GNSO Council structure Hi, being an NCA, I would like to add my thoughts in relation to our role in the new GNSO: * Option a: The NCAs talk it through and figure out which roles seem right to them. Could be a valid option, but one of the NCAs will be new in the council, so he could hardly figure out which role to select. [Gomes, Chuck] Regardless of how the Council ultimately decides to make this decision, I think that the input from the NCAs would be useful in making that decision. Also, I think it would be fine to at least invite Andrey to participate in your discussion along with the three existing NCAs. [KR]: I agree that input will be helpful, but should not be dispositive. See my comment on Option d below. * Option b: Random selection. In my oppinon it brings no value in it. * Option c: The council members decide with random selection of which House chooses first. This is another version of the random selection. * Option d: The two Houses collaborate and decide among them where the NCAs will be assigned. This could be an option but perhaps it should add a possible refusal by the NCA, in the case that he/she is not in favour of serving one of the houses or becoming a homeless. What I want to say is that it sounds unfair just say where NCAs go and not having any feedback about their expectations. [Gomes, Chuck] You make a valid point Olga. I don't think we would benefit very much if an NCA was placed in a place where they didn't want to be or thought they could not add much value. [KR]: I agree that NCA input is useful, but not dispositive. For example, one NCA will have to be non-voting (can we not use "homeless", please?). If all three "refuse" to be the non-voting NCA and we've committed to honoring those preferences, we've created quite a mess for ourselves. * Option e: The new, inexperienced NCA rep assumes the non-voting Council seat and one of the above options is used to assign the two House seats. It should not be for the two years, it takes out the stress to voting in the first meetings, where there is a lot to read and sometimes it is hard to decide. [Gomes, Chuck] It seems to me that we could specify that the assignments are for one year only and request that the NomCom be tasked with assigning all three NCAs to seats in the following year. [KR] I like Chuck's suggestion. The problem I see with this approach is that the fact of voting necesarily pushes towards understanding, reading, asking, which at the beginning is challenging and good for the future performance of the NCA in the council. If you are new and you do not have to vote, then you do not have that incentive and you may loose some momentum. * Option f: The experienced NCA rep assumes the non-voting Coundil seat and one of the above options is used to assign the two House seats There is value in active participation without voting, so this option could be valid. * Option g: (Combination of option a and d) The two Houses collaborate and decide among them where the NCAs will be assigned, with a refusal option by any of the NCAs. Regards to all. Olga 2009/9/10 Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Several have expressed views on this. It would be helpful if we could have more list discussion about the various options and any others anyone proposes in the next week. Our plan is to make a decision on this along with the plan for seating Councilors in Seoul on 24 September. Please get input from the groups you represent. Thanks, Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olga Cavalli Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 2:48 PM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] NCAs in the new GNSO Council structure Hi, as discussed yesterday in the conference call, and to start the discussion in our list, I am including possible options for assigning the role of the three NCAs in the new structure of the GNSO Council: Option a: The NCAs talk it through and figure out which roles seem right to them. Option b: Random selection. Option c: The council members decide with random selection of which House chooses first. Option d: The two Houses collaborate and decide among them where the NCAs will be assigned. Option e: The new, inexperienced NCA rep assumes the non-voting Council seat and one of the above options is used to assign the two House seats. Option f: The experienced NCA rep assumes the non-voting Coundil seat and one of the above options is used to assign the two House seats Option g: (Combination of option a and d) The two Houses collaborate and decide among them where the NCAs will be assigned, with a refusal option by any of the NCAs. Please iclude other options thay you may think of and share your comments about this in the list. We should decide about this in our next GNSO conference call on 24 September. Best regards Olga -- Olga Cavalli, Dr. Ing. www.south-ssig.com.ar