RE: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
Stephane
Just for clarity, on this which I should have clarified earlier:
> Terry indicated he was only willing to be placed the Non-contracted
> parties house
That was my preference (most interested in), I was (and am) more than
willing take whichever position the Council selected me for.
See you in Seoul.
Take care
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 8:58 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
Hi Stéphane,
The agreed process has played out and there's not much to be gained by
challenging each other's preferences, or the value of consensus
processes. However, I would simply like to understand FMI what you're
saying here. May I pose four questions, please:
On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Stéphane Van Gelder wrote:
> This means that, despite the overall support of the SGs for a
> solution which
> was also inline with what the NCAs wanted themselves, we opt for the
> solution that suits only one SG. Hardly seems fair.
>
> I really think we should try and honour the NCAs' wishes if we can,
> and the
> proposed option 1 did that.
First, the NCA's wishes, as recounted by Avri on Sept. 29, were as
follows:
>
> Olga and Andrey were both interested in the Contracted Parties House
>
> All three of them were willing to be placed in the Non-Contracted
> parties house.
> Terry indicated he was only willing to be placed the Non-contracted
> parties house
>
> Olga was the only one indicating willingness to take the Independent
> non voting role
So Olga was willing to take any of the three, and made clear on the
last council call that she'd be perfectly happy with non-contracted.
And under the RySG option 1, Andrei was to be given the non-voting
seat, which he clearly did not want. So on what basis can it be said
that RySG option 1 was uniquely in line with the NCAs' wishes?
Second, if satisfying the NCAs was your overarching concern (and
again, your preferred solution did not in fact do this), then why did
the RrSG wait from Sept. 29 to Oct. 14 to express a preference? You
had two full weeks to take a stand for that principle, but said
nothing until after NCSG stated the horridly unjust view that we
should do what we agreed to do.
Third, since you're running for chair, I'd much appreciate it if you
could share your views on whether, as a general matter, the council is
obliged to abide by the rules and procedures it agrees for itself.
Are these binding, or can they be tossed aside or worked around (e.g.
through external lobbying) whenever they prove inconvenient to someone?
Fourth, in terms of substantive outcomes, do you feel it would have
been much better signaling to the ICANN community and the larger world
if all three candidates for chair had been from the contracted house?
Sorry to be slow, I'm just trying to understand your thinking.
Thanks much,
Bill