Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

["James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Paul -

Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time 
line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing 
the names of those volunteers who were not selected.

I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. 
It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change 
the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected 
in the Fall.

Thanks—

J.

From: Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35
To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, Phil Corwin 
<psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

Hi James,

I guess until I know who’s offer of help we are turning down, I’m not prepared 
to agree that we should turn it down.  I also don’t think there is any reason 
not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it.  
We are not the NomCom.  Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on 
how to respond to your request?

Regards,
Paul



From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM
To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

Hi Phil & Paul -

We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when 
the Liaison was created two years ago.

Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council 
or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key 
considerations in the selection process.  Additionally, we received some verbal 
indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the 
deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil’s point 
about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.)

Apologies if this sounds like I’m being coy, but I am attempting to address 
your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should 
they wish to resubmit in the fall.

Hope this helps.

Thanks—

J.



From: Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08
To: Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, James 
Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

I’m inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a 
bit more data. In particular, does the term “underwhelming” denote no 
applications?

Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to 
commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in 
which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on 
simultaneously.

Best to all, Philip

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/Cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM
To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

Hi James,

Before opining, can we have the full data set?  Please let us know who 
expressed interest.  Thanks!

Best,
Paul



From:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

Dear Council Colleagues -

Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being 
considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC.  Unfortunately, the 
response from the GNSO community was underwhelming.  The Vice Chairs and I 
believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the 
announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it 
coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the 
conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad.

Therefore, with this in mind, I’d like to propose that we postpone the 
selection of a new GNSO – GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) 
timeline listed below.  It is expected that the additional time will generate 
renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from 
prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with 
that of other terms, including most Councilors.

Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach.  On 
a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months 
to ensure continuity.  Thank you, Mason.

Thanks—

J.

________________________________

Nominations Accepted for Candidates:  1 OCT 2016
Council Chairs consider candidates and notify first choice  20 OCT
Chairs submit motion to Council by 29 OCT for consideration during Council 
meeting on 8 NOV
GAC Leadership notified of new Liaison by 9 NOV
________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.