Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Thank you, James, for this additional information. Speaking for myself, I do 
not believe I need to know who the applicant was (or even applicants in another 
hypothetical situation where there have been more than one). I understand the 
concerns raised for transparency in the selection process, but also appreciate 
the concerns with publishing the names of applicants. I would not want the need 
to publish the names publicly deter GNSO community members from applying when a 
call of volunteers is made. Apparently, the position is already proving to be 
somewhat difficult to fill. No need to make it more so.

However, as James suggested, if applicants whose applications are turned down 
consent to their names and applications being published, then I would then 
certainly not object. This should be up to the applicant.

Still…, with such a basic requirement needing to be fulfilled, along with the 
“plus” qualification, I am confident that the Council leadership team can make 
a good decision on this on the Council’s behalf. And with the information 
already shared, I don’t feel the need to learn more to support James suggestion 
of postponing the selection of the GAC liaison.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Jun 8, 2016, at 1:59 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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: <owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on 
> behalf of "James M. Bladel" <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' 
> <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 
> <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 <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 <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 <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 
> <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=>
> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> <GNSO Liaison to the GAC - call for candidates - FINAL 30 March 
> 2016v1[1][1].doc>