Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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> 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: 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: <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.