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@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 5:27 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Robert Hoggarth; Stéphane Van Gelder; gnso.secretariat@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@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
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@cov.com To: Glen@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org CC: robert.hoggarth@icann.org; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; gnso.secretariat@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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 5:27 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Robert Hoggarth; Stéphane Van Gelder; gnso.secretariat@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@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
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 <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XX-5>Transition Article XX, Section 5 of these Bylaws and as described in <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5>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 <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-3.8>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>http://ar.ageiadensi.org
From: krosette@cov.com To: Glen@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org CC: robert.hoggarth@icann.org; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; gnso.secretariat@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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 5:27 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Robert Hoggarth; Stéphane Van Gelder; gnso.secretariat@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@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Thanks Alan for clarification from a NomCom perspective which is important to know. I understand there will be 2 choices for the future: - either the NomCom shall act according to the bylaws and assign the NCAs to the houses, meaning all 3 NCAs every year - or in case the NomCom doesn't assign the SG's should find consensus, meaning a process has to be defined in this respect. This could be a job for the SCI if the council agrees. For the present case let's find consensus. This may require some coordination on SG and house level Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Alan Greenberg Gesendet: Montag, 26. September 2011 16:51 An: GNSO Council Betreff: 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 <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 <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XX-5> and as described in Section 5 of Article X <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5> , 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 <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-3.8> ) 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@cov.com > To: Glen@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org > CC: robert.hoggarth@icann.org; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; gnso.secretariat@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@gnso.icann.org [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 5:27 AM > To: council@gnso.icann.org > Cc: Robert Hoggarth; Stéphane Van Gelder; gnso.secretariat@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@gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/> > >
I think Alan's summary is spot on. But in my personal opinion, it is not the case that there are only 2 options going forward as you suggest Wolf-Ulrich. The Council is already knee deep in process on so many things, we may not wish to add another layer. I agree with you that we may need to do so, but why don't we wait to see if there is a problem dealing with the NCPH NCA assignment this year before deciding on that? So far, as Alan describes, the NCA assignments have been made through discussion between the houses and the NCAs, and everyone has been able to agree and reach a result that suited. Do you expect this not to be the case this year? Stéphane Le 26 sept. 2011 à 17:23, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
Thanks Alan for clarification from a NomCom perspective which is important to know.
I understand there will be 2 choices for the future: - either the NomCom shall act according to the bylaws and assign the NCAs to the houses, meaning all 3 NCAs every year - or in case the NomCom doesn't assign the SG's should find consensus, meaning a process has to be defined in this respect. This could be a job for the SCI if the council agrees.
For the present case let's find consensus. This may require some coordination on SG and house level
Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich
Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Alan Greenberg Gesendet: Montag, 26. September 2011 16:51 An: GNSO Council Betreff: 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@cov.com To: Glen@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org CC: robert.hoggarth@icann.org; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; gnso.secretariat@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@gnso.icann.org [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 5:27 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Robert Hoggarth; Stéphane Van Gelder; gnso.secretariat@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@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Putting my Chair hat back on, I have sent an email to the current NomCom Chair, Adam Peake, asking him if he has any advice for the Council on this. I will of course let you know when he responds. Thanks, Stéphane Le 26 sept. 2011 à 22:12, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :
I think Alan's summary is spot on. But in my personal opinion, it is not the case that there are only 2 options going forward as you suggest Wolf-Ulrich.
The Council is already knee deep in process on so many things, we may not wish to add another layer.
I agree with you that we may need to do so, but why don't we wait to see if there is a problem dealing with the NCPH NCA assignment this year before deciding on that?
So far, as Alan describes, the NCA assignments have been made through discussion between the houses and the NCAs, and everyone has been able to agree and reach a result that suited.
Do you expect this not to be the case this year?
Stéphane
Le 26 sept. 2011 à 17:23, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
Thanks Alan for clarification from a NomCom perspective which is important to know.
I understand there will be 2 choices for the future: - either the NomCom shall act according to the bylaws and assign the NCAs to the houses, meaning all 3 NCAs every year - or in case the NomCom doesn't assign the SG's should find consensus, meaning a process has to be defined in this respect. This could be a job for the SCI if the council agrees.
For the present case let's find consensus. This may require some coordination on SG and house level
Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich
Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Alan Greenberg Gesendet: Montag, 26. September 2011 16:51 An: GNSO Council Betreff: 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@cov.com To: Glen@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org CC: robert.hoggarth@icann.org; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; gnso.secretariat@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@gnso.icann.org [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 5:27 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Robert Hoggarth; Stéphane Van Gelder; gnso.secretariat@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@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Stéphane, thanks for doing this. My thinking is far from making things more complicate rather than to find a solution being as close as possible to a consensus for all involved. We seem to have no input from the NomCom regarding the assignment to a specific house, and since 2 NCAs apply for an NCPH assignment there is ongoing discussion within and between the SGs represented in the house. I expect that this will lead to an agreement in time. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Montag, 26. September 2011 22:20 An: GNSO Council List Betreff: Re: [council] Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to two Houses Putting my Chair hat back on, I have sent an email to the current NomCom Chair, Adam Peake, asking him if he has any advice for the Council on this. I will of course let you know when he responds. Thanks, Stéphane Le 26 sept. 2011 à 22:12, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit : I think Alan's summary is spot on. But in my personal opinion, it is not the case that there are only 2 options going forward as you suggest Wolf-Ulrich. The Council is already knee deep in process on so many things, we may not wish to add another layer. I agree with you that we may need to do so, but why don't we wait to see if there is a problem dealing with the NCPH NCA assignment this year before deciding on that? So far, as Alan describes, the NCA assignments have been made through discussion between the houses and the NCAs, and everyone has been able to agree and reach a result that suited. Do you expect this not to be the case this year? Stéphane Le 26 sept. 2011 à 17:23, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit : Thanks Alan for clarification from a NomCom perspective which is important to know. I understand there will be 2 choices for the future: - either the NomCom shall act according to the bylaws and assign the NCAs to the houses, meaning all 3 NCAs every year - or in case the NomCom doesn't assign the SG's should find consensus, meaning a process has to be defined in this respect. This could be a job for the SCI if the council agrees. For the present case let's find consensus. This may require some coordination on SG and house level Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich ________________________________ Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Alan Greenberg Gesendet: Montag, 26. September 2011 16:51 An: GNSO Council Betreff: 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 <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 <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XX-5> and as described in Section 5 of Article X <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5> , 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 <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-3.8> ) 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 <http://ar.ageiadensi.org/> > From: krosette@cov.com > To: Glen@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org > CC: robert.hoggarth@icann.org; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; gnso.secretariat@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@gnso.icann.org [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 5:27 AM > To: council@gnso.icann.org > Cc: Robert Hoggarth; Stéphane Van Gelder; gnso.secretariat@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@gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/> > >
Thanks Wolf. I will let you and the Council know if I hear back from the NomCom. Stéphane Le 27 sept. 2011 à 11:06, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
Stéphane,
thanks for doing this.
My thinking is far from making things more complicate rather than to find a solution being as close as possible to a consensus for all involved.
We seem to have no input from the NomCom regarding the assignment to a specific house, and since 2 NCAs apply for an NCPH assignment there is ongoing discussion within and between the SGs represented in the house.
I expect that this will lead to an agreement in time.
Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich
Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Montag, 26. September 2011 22:20 An: GNSO Council List Betreff: Re: [council] Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to two Houses
Putting my Chair hat back on, I have sent an email to the current NomCom Chair, Adam Peake, asking him if he has any advice for the Council on this.
I will of course let you know when he responds.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 26 sept. 2011 à 22:12, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :
I think Alan's summary is spot on. But in my personal opinion, it is not the case that there are only 2 options going forward as you suggest Wolf-Ulrich.
The Council is already knee deep in process on so many things, we may not wish to add another layer.
I agree with you that we may need to do so, but why don't we wait to see if there is a problem dealing with the NCPH NCA assignment this year before deciding on that?
So far, as Alan describes, the NCA assignments have been made through discussion between the houses and the NCAs, and everyone has been able to agree and reach a result that suited.
Do you expect this not to be the case this year?
Stéphane
Le 26 sept. 2011 à 17:23, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
Thanks Alan for clarification from a NomCom perspective which is important to know.
I understand there will be 2 choices for the future: - either the NomCom shall act according to the bylaws and assign the NCAs to the houses, meaning all 3 NCAs every year - or in case the NomCom doesn't assign the SG's should find consensus, meaning a process has to be defined in this respect. This could be a job for the SCI if the council agrees.
For the present case let's find consensus. This may require some coordination on SG and house level
Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich
Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Alan Greenberg Gesendet: Montag, 26. September 2011 16:51 An: GNSO Council Betreff: 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@cov.com To: Glen@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org CC: robert.hoggarth@icann.org; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; gnso.secretariat@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@gnso.icann.org [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 5:27 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Robert Hoggarth; Stéphane Van Gelder; gnso.secretariat@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@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
Councilors: I`m Back on this issue, in my particular view it seems to me the situation is a serious one. We need to define it, because the transparency of the GNSO resolutions is on game. On the other side, there are not possibility to reach a consensus to violate bylaws, or decide something different against bylaws are saying, this is not legitimate nor legal in any system. In my opinion only possibility is to ask the NomCom finally act in the same line of the bylaws puting the NCA Councilors in each house or as homeless, clarifying there are another old NCA Councilor still without vote . The bylaws are very clear. I invite read again the specific rule : "ARTICLE VII: NOMINATING COMMITTEE - 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." In my opinion there are not interpretation to do, because rule is extremely clear at last sentence of the paragraph. However, just in case, and in my personal capacity, I sent few days ago an email to the ICANN General Councel asking his opinion about it. It seems to me, this could be a good action moving forward the discussion on this issue, in advance our next Dakar meeting. 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] Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to two Houses From: stephane.vangelder@indom.com Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:33:48 +0200 CC: council@gnso.icann.org To: KnobenW@telekom.de Thanks Wolf. I will let you and the Council know if I hear back from the NomCom. Stéphane Le 27 sept. 2011 à 11:06, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit : Stéphane, thanks for doing this. My thinking is far from making things more complicate rather than to find a solution being as close as possible to a consensus for all involved. We seem to have no input from the NomCom regarding the assignment to a specific house, and since 2 NCAs apply for an NCPH assignment there is ongoing discussion within and between the SGs represented in the house. I expect that this will lead to an agreement in time. Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Stéphane Van Gelder Gesendet: Montag, 26. September 2011 22:20 An: GNSO Council List Betreff: Re: [council] Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to two Houses Putting my Chair hat back on, I have sent an email to the current NomCom Chair, Adam Peake, asking him if he has any advice for the Council on this. I will of course let you know when he responds. Thanks, Stéphane Le 26 sept. 2011 à 22:12, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit : I think Alan's summary is spot on. But in my personal opinion, it is not the case that there are only 2 options going forward as you suggest Wolf-Ulrich. The Council is already knee deep in process on so many things, we may not wish to add another layer. I agree with you that we may need to do so, but why don't we wait to see if there is a problem dealing with the NCPH NCA assignment this year before deciding on that? So far, as Alan describes, the NCA assignments have been made through discussion between the houses and the NCAs, and everyone has been able to agree and reach a result that suited. Do you expect this not to be the case this year? Stéphane Le 26 sept. 2011 à 17:23, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit : Thanks Alan for clarification from a NomCom perspective which is important to know. I understand there will be 2 choices for the future: - either the NomCom shall act according to the bylaws and assign the NCAs to the houses, meaning all 3 NCAs every year - or in case the NomCom doesn't assign the SG's should find consensus, meaning a process has to be defined in this respect. This could be a job for the SCI if the council agrees. For the present case let's find consensus. This may require some coordination on SG and house level Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich Von: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Alan Greenberg Gesendet: Montag, 26. September 2011 16:51 An: GNSO Council Betreff: 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@cov.com To: Glen@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org
CC: robert.hoggarth@icann.org; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; gnso.secretariat@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@gnso.icann.org
[ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 5:27 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org
Cc: Robert Hoggarth; Stéphane Van Gelder; gnso.secretariat@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@gnso.icann.org
Hi, Carlos rises an important point. Noncom Appointees to the GNSO should be assigned to the respective houses following a certain procedure that must be transparent and fair for all the participants. This procedure must be clearly established and followed. Best regards Olga 2011/10/15 carlos dionisio aguirre <carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com>
Councilors: I`m Back on this issue, in my particular view it seems to me the situation is a serious one. We need to define it, because the transparency of the GNSO resolutions is on game. On the other side, there are not possibility to reach a consensus to violate bylaws, or decide something different against bylaws are saying, this is not legitimate nor legal in any system. In my opinion only possibility is to ask the NomCom finally act in the same line of the bylaws puting the NCA Councilors in each house or as homeless, clarifying there are another old NCA Councilor still without vote . The bylaws are very clear. I invite read again the specific rule :
"ARTICLE VII: NOMINATING COMMITTEE - *Section 3. GNSO COUNCIL *1. Subject to the provisions of Transition Article XX, Section 5 of these Bylaws <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XX-5> and as described in Section 5 of Article X<http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5>, 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<http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-3.8>) by the Nominating Committee."
In my opinion there are not interpretation to do, because rule is extremely clear at last sentence of the paragraph. However, just in case, and in my personal capacity, I sent few days ago an email to the ICANN General Councel asking his opinion about it.
It seems to me, this could be a good action moving forward the discussion on this issue, in advance our next Dakar meeting.
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] Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to two Houses From: stephane.vangelder@indom.com Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:33:48 +0200 CC: council@gnso.icann.org To: KnobenW@telekom.de
Thanks Wolf.
I will let you and the Council know if I hear back from the NomCom.
Stéphane
Le 27 sept. 2011 à 11:06, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
Stéphane,
thanks for doing this.
My thinking is far from making things more complicate rather than to find a solution being as close as possible to a consensus for all involved.
We seem to have no input from the NomCom regarding the assignment to a specific house, and since 2 NCAs apply for an NCPH assignment there is ongoing discussion within and between the SGs represented in the house.
I expect that this will lead to an agreement in time.
Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich
------------------------------ *Von:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Stéphane Van Gelder *Gesendet:* Montag, 26. September 2011 22:20 *An:* GNSO Council List *Betreff:* Re: [council] Nominating Committee Appointees (NCA) selection to two Houses
Putting my Chair hat back on, I have sent an email to the current NomCom Chair, Adam Peake, asking him if he has any advice for the Council on this.
I will of course let you know when he responds.
Thanks,
Stéphane
Le 26 sept. 2011 à 22:12, Stéphane Van Gelder a écrit :
I think Alan's summary is spot on. But in my personal opinion, it is not the case that there are only 2 options going forward as you suggest Wolf-Ulrich.
The Council is already knee deep in process on so many things, we may not wish to add another layer.
I agree with you that we may need to do so, but why don't we wait to see if there is a problem dealing with the NCPH NCA assignment this year before deciding on that?
So far, as Alan describes, the NCA assignments have been made through discussion between the houses and the NCAs, and everyone has been able to agree and reach a result that suited.
Do you expect this not to be the case this year?
Stéphane
Le 26 sept. 2011 à 17:23, <KnobenW@telekom.de> a écrit :
Thanks Alan for clarification from a NomCom perspective which is important to know.
I understand there will be 2 choices for the future: - either the NomCom shall act according to the bylaws and assign the NCAs to the houses, meaning *all* 3 NCAs *every* year - or in case the NomCom doesn't assign the SG's should find consensus, meaning a process has to be defined in this respect. This could be a job for the SCI if the council agrees.
For the present case let's find consensus. This may require some coordination on SG and house level
Kind regards Wolf-Ulrich
------------------------------ *Von:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *Im Auftrag von *Alan Greenberg *Gesendet:* Montag, 26. September 2011 16:51 *An:* GNSO Council *Betreff:* 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 <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#XX-5> and as described in Section 5 of Article X <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5>, 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 <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-3.8>) 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@cov.com To: Glen@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org CC: robert.hoggarth@icann.org; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; gnso.secretariat@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@gnso.icann.org [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 5:27 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Cc: Robert Hoggarth; Stéphane Van Gelder; gnso.secretariat@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@gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org
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@gnso.icann.org From: alan.greenberg@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@cov.com
To: Glen@icann.org; council@gnso.icann.org
CC: robert.hoggarth@icann.org; stephane.vangelder@indom.com; gnso.secretariat@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@gnso.icann.org [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 5:27 AM
To: council@gnso.icann.org
Cc: Robert Hoggarth; Stéphane Van Gelder; gnso.secretariat@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@gnso.icann.org
participants (7)
-
Alan Greenberg -
carlos dionisio aguirre -
Glen de Saint Géry -
KnobenW＠telekom.de -
Olga Cavalli -
Rosette, Kristina -
Stéphane Van Gelder