Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

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

Folks -  Perhaps we could all step back just a bit and reset the conversation 
on this topic.

A reminder that the proposal on the table calls for an extension through 
ICANN57.  More time could lead to additional candidates, and could also be an 
opportunity for our current candidate to amend/augment his submission.

Donna, Heather and I are working with Staff to follow the process that was 
adopted by the Council, and tracks closely to the selection process used last 
time around. But we are not bound by tradition, and if the Council wants to 
amend the process, then an extension also benefits us, in granting an 
opportunity to make changes (re: expectations of confidentiality, 
qualifications sought, etc.).

Thanks—

J.


From: Volker Greimann 
<vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 11:48
To: Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 'Amr 
Elsadr' <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, 'Susan 
Kawaguchi' <susank@xxxxxx<mailto:susank@xxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update


Frankly,  I am disappointed in this attempt to both shoehorn a particular 
candidate into position ("Let’s do the right thing and move forward with 
confirming Colin for this position") and at the same time cast James in a 
partisan light ("why the folks you represent on Council may be unhappy"), when 
it was the entire leadership team that made this decision.

Let's leave such antics to the Trump team.

If Colin is indeed qualified for the position, maybe he should have made a 
better case in his application instead of providing a minimalistic EOI and he 
can always re-submit his application during the extention and make a better 
case. While the process could have been more transparent, I have full 
confidence that this couse of action will allow for a better result, which may 
be Colin after all.

Just because there is only one candidate for a given position does not mean 
that he has to be chosen. I believe such a course of action was also adopted by 
the CSG when it came to the election process for the GNSO council leadership a 
few months back. If the candidate does not appear qualified, extending the 
search for candidates is a good result, especially when the previous holder of 
the position is willing to stay on until his replacement is found.

I had hoped we as a council would be able to move beyond partisan politics and 
focus on doing our job as best we can to the benefit of the entire community.

Best,

Volker



Am 08.06.2016 um 17:33 schrieb Paul McGrady:
Hi Amr,

These are great questions and in an open and transparent process where someone 
is not disqualified in a vacuum, we would have had opportunity to ask Colin 
that question.  You say you don’t know Colin and it appears the top-down 
process of pre-disqualification will ensure that you won’t meet him in the 
context of his candidacy.   If there were a non-top down, open, transparent 
process in place, which there doesn’t appear to be, perhaps he would have 
replied that, of course, he has experience in GAC policy development as that 
policy effects all of his clients who operate in the space and that is 
precisely why he was chose by INTA with its 9000 members to be in the GAC 
policy related leadership role he is in presently.  However, from James’ last 
post, it appears that there will be no opportunity for the GNSO Council to hear 
from Colin and no real consideration given to his well-qualified candidacy.

Regards,
Paul



From:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:57 AM
To: Paul McGrady
Cc: James M. Bladel; Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

Hi Paul,

I don’t know Colin, but he sounds like a very accomplished person. If he really 
was the sole applicant, then I am at least glad that he is interested in the 
job, as well as in GAC participation in the GNSO’s PDP.

Still…, your description of Colin does not (as far as I can tell) include any 
actual experience with GNSO processes. Considering the nature of the role and 
duties of the GAC Liaison, wouldn’t you agree that there is a reason why 
experience in policy development in the GNSO is the main consideration that 
needs to be taken into account? This includes understanding of the procedural 
nuances of the process, as well as the substantive policy issues.

Then again, maybe he does have experience with the GNSO, and I am just unaware. 
Like I said, I don’t know Colin personally.

Thanks.

Amr

On Jun 8, 2016, at 4:17 PM, Paul McGrady 
<policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Hi James,

This is very disturbing.  I happen to know that Colin O’Brien, an IPC member 
expressed interest, so the person you are attempting to exclude is – naturally 
– an IPC member.  I do not, and in the strongest terms, agree with your 
conclusion that Colin is unqualified.  The facts reveal quite the opposite.  
Colin is the Chair of INTA’s Subcommittee on GAC issues where he oversees 
approximately 25 volunteers all focus on policy issues related to the GAC.  His 
policy work has been extremely important to the development of policy through 
his role at INTA and the IPC. He has a long history of being at ICANN meetings 
– where you will find him in every GAC session, being a careful student of the 
process, and going back to lead policy efforts in his role within INTA.   I can 
understand why the folks you represent on Council may be unhappy that they 
could not locate a volunteer to step forward, but that is not the same thing as 
Colin – a bright young lawyer with an international practice focusing in the 
ICANN space – being unqualified (unless being an IPC member is an automatic 
disqualification, in which case let’s just state that openly and discuss 
whether or not that is appropriate).  .

So, I say that Colin is not only qualified, but that he is the most qualified 
of any candidate that came forward.  I see no reason to allow one SC to set the 
agenda here nor do I see any reason to exclude IPC members from this important 
role.  Let’s do the right thing and move forward with confirming Colin for this 
position.

Regards,
Paul



From: <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
[<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:59 AM
To: Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

Hi Susan -

You are correct, and I do recall the Council's conversation in Marrakesh, but 
the group didn’t come to a decision either way.   Referencing the selection 
process and criteria contained in the "Call for Candidates"(attached) that was 
adopted by the Council and distributed by Glen to the SGs and Cs, we note under 
“skills and experience” that:

* Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development 
process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or 
review in the GNSO
And
* A former or recently departed GNSO Councilor is likely to be well-qualified 
for the position but this is not a necessary criterion for the Liaison.

With the first being held up as a requirement, and the second expressed more as 
a “plus”.

In our current situation, I can report that we received one submission, and it 
did not meet ether criteria.  This could be because the candidate lacks the 
requested experience, or because their submitted Expression of Interest was 
incomplete.  We also received a handful (~3) verbal inquiries from other 
candidates, but those were later withdrawn.  In all  scenarios, I believe our 
selection would benefit from extending the call for candidates and evaluation 
through ICANN 57.

If it the consensus of the Council is that we now publish the submission 
received (including the candidate’s name), then I would ask Council to grant me 
the opportunity to go back to that candidate and obtain their consent, and that 
publication of the EOI should only proceed if the candidate agrees.

Thanks—

J.


From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@xxxxxx<mailto:susank@xxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42
To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, Paul 
McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Phil Corwin 
<psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

Hi James,

We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn’t understand why 
this had to be secretive at that time.    Who would make the selection if we 
had enough candidates?

The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and 
who was selected on the team.

I think we aim for more transparency.
Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager
Facebook Legal Dept.


From: 
<<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
 on behalf of "James M. Bladel" 
<<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM
To: Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 'Phil 
Corwin' <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, 'GNSO Council List' 
<<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

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 
<<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>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:<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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 
<<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
GNSO Council List 
<<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>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:<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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:<mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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 - 
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMF-g&c=5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=hXC3Qj-mLg92Z-SFun5NBlbBvWEeTyBXJec7jH8lma0&s=7sxeiejezt0AVXvDbIEyoJDh0dZhmITjW8AQWxiAfc4&e=>
 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.



--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / 
www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com>
 / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen 
Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder 
Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht 
nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder 
telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

--------------------------------------------

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / 
www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com>
 / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>

CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is 
addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this 
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an 
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the 
author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.