RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

["Paul McGrady" <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

 

I am simply amazed by this.  Not only are we suggesting that we pretend
there was some confidentiality around the EOI process, which there wasn't,
which gives cover for the vacuum in which we have been asked to support
James' proposal (the vacuum now being dealt with by the disclosure of the
applicant that James has pre-disqualified even though that applicant is more
than qualified, it appears that there is actually stomach for the notion
that such pre-disqualification is not only proper but within the remit of
the GNSO Council "leadership."  A few (rhetorical) follow on questions then:

 

1.        Assuming the inappropriate railroading of the IPC candidate
continues, in any future round of EOIs, will the secret review and
disqualification rest only with James or can we all secretly review and
disqualify candidates?  

2.       Will the secret review and disqualification apply for all positions
for which the GNSO Council calls for volunteers or just the GAC Liaison
role?  If not all, which roles will have a secret review and
disqualification period?

3.       Any ideas on how the heck I explain this targeted exclusion to the
IPC?  As you can imagine, I am way over my skis with them by vouching prior
to the vote for Chair of the Council that the IPC would be treated
neutrally.  This is a PR disaster.

 

Folks, it's not too late to course correct here and confirm the GNSO
community's volunteer.  

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:33 AM
To: James M. Bladel
Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

 

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 < <mailto:susank@xxxxxx> susank@xxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 
To: James Bladel < <mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul
McGrady < <mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Phil
Corwin < <mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx> psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <
<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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: < <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
on behalf of "James M. Bladel" < <mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM
To: Paul McGrady < <mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
'Phil Corwin' < <mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx> psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 'GNSO Council
List' < <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 < <mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 
To: James Bladel < <mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Phil
Corwin < <mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx> psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO Council List <
<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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: <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 < <mailto:psc@xxxxxxxxxxx> psc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 
To: Paul McGrady < <mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
James Bladel < <mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, GNSO
Council List < <mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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: <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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: <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 -
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMF-g&c=
5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=hXC3Qj-mLg92Z-SFun5NBlbBvW
EeTyBXJec7jH8lma0&s=7sxeiejezt0AVXvDbIEyoJDh0dZhmITjW8AQWxiAfc4&e=>
www.avg.com
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>