<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi,
First, I just want to thank Mason for agreeing to continue to serve as
liaison. His dedication is much appreciated.
I would have great difficulty supporting anyone who does not have extensive
GNSO policy development experience for this role. This is a relatively
sensitive position and a well meaning individual without the requisite skill
set could do more harm than good. At this delicate stage in the transition
that's a chance we just can't take. I should note that I personally considered
applying for this position but felt I did not yet have the longevity or
necessary experience to perform adequately in the role. This should be a very
high level appointment.
I am perturbed at the apparent allegations of any impropriety in the process.
I wasn't happy with the CCT selection process, feel the noncommercial community
did not receive adequate consideration for our candidates, felt the rules
changed a bit somewhat as the process went forward, but at no time did I ever
feel the need to make any allegations about intentional impropriety. This
despite the fact the NCSG, NCUC and NPOC (three groups I have some role in
representing on Council), unlike the IPC, has nobody currently represented on
the leadership team. The perfect is sometimes difficult to achieve but the lack
thereof does not mean the existence of intentional culpability on the part of
anyone.
I agree with the decision of the Council leadership team in this instance. If
Mason is willing to continue in the role, I'd suggest we defer this appointment
for the new Council to make when it takes office in the fall. Henceforth it
might be a good idea to formalise appointments of this sort so they correspond
with Council terms and the AGM.
Best,
Ed
----------------------------------------
From: "Paul McGrady" <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 4:04 PM
To: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Susan Kawaguchi" <susank@xxxxxx>, "GNSO Council List"
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
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 <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.
<GNSO Liaison to the GAC - call for candidates - FINAL 30 March
2016v1[1][1].doc>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|