<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi Amr,
These are great questions and in an open and transparent process where someone
is not disqualified in a vacuum, we would have had opportunity to ask Colin
that question. You say you don’t know Colin and it appears the top-down
process of pre-disqualification will ensure that you won’t meet him in the
context of his candidacy. If there were a non-top down, open, transparent
process in place, which there doesn’t appear to be, perhaps he would have
replied that, of course, he has experience in GAC policy development as that
policy effects all of his clients who operate in the space and that is
precisely why he was chose by INTA with its 9000 members to be in the GAC
policy related leadership role he is in presently. However, from James’ last
post, it appears that there will be no opportunity for the GNSO Council to hear
from Colin and no real consideration given to his well-qualified candidacy.
Regards,
Paul
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:57 AM
To: Paul McGrady
Cc: James M. Bladel; Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List
Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
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: <mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 < <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-SFun5NBlbBvWEeTyBXJec7jH8lma0&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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|