Thanks Terry, that is very helpful. Stéphane Le 15/10/09 18:42, « Terry L Davis, P.E. » <tdavis2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > > 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 > > > >
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature