Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

["WUKnoben" <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

After James’ open information I can’t see any disadvantage to leave it as is 
and proceed with a further round as suggested.
During the call for candidates period I personally had communication with 
several people I thought they could fill the job suitably and might have an 
interest to do so. As James pointed out timing of the announcement did not fit 
since those had still commitments in WGs or other GNSO areas.

I’m confident of a better response later this year.

Best regards

Wolf-Ulrich



From: James M. Bladel 
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 1:59 PM
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candidates, but those were later withdrawn.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>
Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 
To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <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: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" 
<jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM
To: Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Phil Corwin' <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 
'GNSO Council List' <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>
Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 
To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Phil Corwin <psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO 
Council List <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] 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>
Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 
To: Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 
GNSO Council List <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] 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] 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
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.