Re: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC

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

Thanks all for weighing in.

There currently isn¹t a second to the motion, so I take these changes as
friendly and ask that Marika & team modify the WHEREAS 2 language
accordingly (the most recent version submitted by Wolf-Ulrich, below).


J.



On 6/21/16, 6:50 , "Paul McGrady" <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>Thanks WU. I think that is fine since it reflects the reality of what
>happened and doesn't require any sort of judgment on the quality of the
>sole applicant. Thanks!
>
>Best,
>Paul
>
>
>Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jun 21, 2016, at 6:35 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Paul,
>> 
>> I'm with you that WHEREAS 2 as originally suggested should be improved.
>>However expressing or describing hopes in a motion seems to bring in
>>some subjectivity which is difficult to assess. So I wonder whether this
>>could be acceptable:
>> 
>> 2.    The subsequent call for volunteers resulted in the decision to
>>extend the selection process.
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards
>> 
>> Wolf-Ulrich
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Paul McGrady
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:28 AM
>> To: James M. Bladel
>> Cc: GNSO Council List
>> Subject: Re: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO
>>Liaison to the GAC
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks James. How about we strike it as written, and just say "whereas
>>the volume of responses to the request for applications for the role was
>>less robust than hoped for."
>> 
>> Best,
>> Paul
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 8:50 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Paul -
>>> 
>>> You are correct, "incomplete" is probably not the best word. The
>>>intention was to leave the door open for the lone application received
>>>to be resubmitted.
>>> 
>>> I'm fine if we strike "incomplete", or even the entirety of WHEREAS 2.
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> 
>>> J.
>>> ____________
>>> James Bladel
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 16:35, Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi James,
>>>> 
>>>> I am Ok with this, except I don't understand WHEREAS 2.  What element
>>>>of the
>>>> application wasn't completed?  I thought from all that back and forth
>>>>that
>>>> the reason to not move forward with the one candidate we had was that
>>>>there
>>>> was only 1 applicant and, in the opinion of some, he didn't fit the
>>>>bill.
>>>> This motion reads as if there was an application form that didn't
>>>>have all
>>>> the checkmarks checked.  Can you please elaborate on what is meant by
>>>> "incomplete"?  Thanks in advance.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> Paul
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
>>>> Behalf Of James M. Bladel
>>>> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 3:11 PM
>>>> To: GNSO Council List
>>>> Subject: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO
>>>>Liaison
>>>> to the GAC
>>>> 
>>>> Councilors -
>> 
>> 
>