RE: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
I should copy / paste Terry's statement.
> >> Olga and Andrey were both interested in the Contracted Parties House
I was, but follow any Council verdict with pleasure. This is a short version
of what I said during the call.
See you,
--andrei
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-
> council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stephane Van Gelder
> Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:17 PM
> To: Terry L Davis, P.E.; 'William Drake'
> Cc: 'Council GNSO'
> Subject: Re: [council] Appointment of NCA to Houses
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >