RE: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
> the council agreed to a process of unanimous consent on the extended
> 'negotiations' and you did not get unanimous consent.
When did we do this? Was it a vote, or a respond if you object kind of
thing?
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, October 15, 2009 11:36 am
To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi,
The problems are:
- the request for an extension of time was not madeuntil after the
drawing happened, thus making the request something that happened
after the the decision was made.
- the council agreed to a process of unanimous consent on the extended
'negotiations' and you did not get unanimous consent.
a.
On 15 Oct 2009, at 18:25, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>
> The only aspect of the agreed process that was not met is the
> timeline.
> We routinely stretch timelines, even those mandated in bylaws. I
> certainly did not understand the process to mean we had to reach
> unanimity. When do we ever expect that?
>
> The fact of the matter is that three of the four SGs agreed on an
> assignment plan. That plan puts Terry where he prefers and Olga seemed
> flexible. It does put Andrei in the seat he would prefer not to have,
> but he is the newest NCA. I don't see that as unreasonable.
>
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
> From: William Drake <william.drake@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, October 15, 2009 10:57 am
> To: StÃphane_Van_Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> Hi StÃphane,
>
> 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, StÃphane 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
>
>
>