Re: [council] Amended Motion: GNSO CSC Liaison Candidates

[Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@xxxxxxxxx>]

I’ll look at this and send a corrected version.

 

Thanks!

Julie

 

From: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of WUKnoben 
<wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, July 21, 2016 at 5:20 AM
To: David Cake <davecake@xxxxxxxxx>, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [council] Amended Motion: GNSO CSC Liaison Candidates

 

You’re definitely right David. Either the scale should be 1 to 5 or the bars’ 
length doubled.


Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich

 

From: David Cake 

Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 9:59 AM

To: Glen de Saint Géry 

Cc: mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

Subject: Re: [council] Amended Motion: GNSO CSC Liaison Candidates

 

 

On 20 Jul 2016, at 6:29 PM, Glen de Saint Géry <Glen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

and the GNSO CSC Liaison Evaluation has been published at:

http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-csc-liaison-evaluation-16jul16-en.pdf

on page:

http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/drafts

 

There is an issue with the graphics on that page. If the scores out of 10 that  
the selection committee gave to James on the criteria for the position seem 
low, that is because they were actually scores out of 5.

 

David

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature