[alac] (fwd) Re: Re: NomCom & GNSO Council at the same time?

[Vittorio Bertola <vb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If I understand it well, this means that Gabriel Piñeiro is resigning
from our LA NomCom seat. While we should of course wait for a formal
statement, we should think at how to replace him immediately (unless
we want to convince him not to resign).
Particularly, I would like to hear the views of Erick and Sebastian on
this.

On Fri, 7 Mar 2003 21:34:51 -0300, Gabriel Piñeiro
<gpineiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Dear Friends:
>El Mié 05 Mar 2003 13:20, Louis Touton escribió:
>> Gabriel's selection to the GNSO Council is permissible under the bylaws
>> currently in effect.  It would not be permissible under the draft bylaws
>> provision posted on 3 March.  (It would have been permissible under the
>> 23 February draft
>> <http://www.icann.org/committees/evol-reform/proposed-bylaws-corrections-23
>>feb03.htm>,
>>
>As far that (legally speaking) I'm able to perform all my duties, I feel that 
>that's not possible, but not becouse the "written bylaws", just becouse those 
>"unwriten rules". You'll see, perhaps this had happen to me becouse I am too 
>helpfull; you'll see, when Erick leave the NCC, there were nobody available 
>that fills in the NCC that Chair. That happen on Feb'03. Also, aproximately 
>by the same time, the NomCom call was launched. I participate in the new At 
>Large process since it's very beggining, and when the Board call for ALAC 
>Boards and then the At Large NomCom's, seems perfectly to me to apply for 
>that. I also want to remark that I clarify since the very beggining of the 
>NomCom process, I clarify this situation to Denise Michel (so I'm not playing 
>under bad faith, not at all!). In fact, she ask me if there was, in my 
>opinion, a "conflict of intrests", very directly and specific, so no "tricky" 
>answers were made, not in the ALAC and certainly not from me. Of course, I 
>said to her that I dont believe that a "conflic of intrests" exists (and I 
>still think so!) However, Amadeu bring to me his very reasonable doubts about 
>my legitimity of my position, and just becouse the "shadow of the doubt" 
>appears on the horizon, I would like to presentate my resignation to the 
>NomCom position effectivly inmediatly. 
>
>But first, I want to be VERY CLEAR AND SPECIFIC on this decition, and why did 
>I take it: I don't wan't ANY SHADOW AT ALL when I take over any 
>responsability, no matter which one; therefore, I think it's better for all 
>of us and of course for the ICANN that I decline to some of the questionated 
>positions, and htat would be the NomCom. Why? Becouse otherwise, the NCC 
>AdCom and the Names Council chair would be empty, leaving LAC WITHOUT ANY 
>REPRESENTATION ON THE ADCOM AND BY THAT, ON THE NAMES COUNCIL: I know by the 
>press release that if 66 application forms were filled. Also Vittorio told me 
>that the selection was "very difficult". Therefore, filling the gaps, that 
>implies that someone else from LAC were arround when the selection was made. 
>And that's not happening on the NCC. So I take the decition that I thinks 
>it's most useful for my ICANN Zone, and certainly not myself (we all know 
>which duties perform the NomCom). As I explain, when Erick leave the NCC to 
>join the ALAC, he left his "parking spot" and by the same time (more or 
>less), the NomCom were selecting the NomCom's. It's not his fault, not the 
>ALAC members, not Denise, and not certainly mine. What really happen is that 
>we are very few from LAC in the ICANN, and think that if with the old 
>structure we barely cover all the positions, imagine the same now. And if I 
>get involved in a thing like the ALAC, is becouse more people could be 
>involved in ICANN, and with that, all this kind of odd situations wouldn't 
>happen. 
>
>
>
>> but the Board felt that was not sufficiently restrictive.)
>>
>Indeed, u r totally correct! So, I would like to suggest (if possible, within 
>the particular limits we face) that the Bylaws, if possible, might have some 
>taxative indications on which "hats" are possible (or not) to "wear" 
>simultaneously; in order to avoid this kind of situations in the future.
>
>
>
>At 10:53 a.m. 06/03/2003 -0300, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>> Is this possible according to the bylaws currently in effect?
>>
>Nop, but we dont apply that ones, even this principle. That would be like 
>applying them retroactivly to the time of the election, and that's legally 
>impossible in continental and common law enviroments. However, I choose to 
>resign my NomCom charge, but becouse of the given explanations.
>
>
>
>> Grabiel is already a member of the nominating committee on behalf of
>> the ALAC...
>>
>That's true; but I repeat: at the time I answer the necesary questions, I 
>clearly state this. Even more, Denise ask me about this clearly, so I 
>wouldn't, at any time, hide this, so "bad faith" can't be possible in this 
>case, because at the time I was elected, the current Bylaws doesn't exist.
>
>
>
>>  Also, I'm wondering whether this constellation might
>> pose problems with the new proposed revised bylaw language on this
>> topic (like the need for a transition rule in there).
>>
>I want to be pretty clear with this: as far as I think I have a good english, 
>perhaps it "doesnt work" for others (my fault, of course): the new proposed 
>revised bylaw language cannot be applied in my case; but I only resign 
>becouse I think that if I maintain both chairs I would contribute somehow to 
>the discredit of the ICANN, I hope u all understand my position. Best wishes, 
>Gabriel Piñero.

-- 
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
-------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------