RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

["Paul McGrady" <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

James,

 

Painting me as a conspiracy theorist isn't helpful. 

 

Let me be very clear, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and I
personally think this is just a blunder not a conspiracy. Pre-disqualifying
a candidate and then asking the Council to ratify that without the full data
set, and then resisting multiple requests for the full data set - while
perhaps not a conspiracy - is simple not the way things should be done.
Importantly, however, you need to realize how this will be viewed by many
within the IPC, namely that their candidate was blocked for no other reason
than his membership in the IPC.  Given what Colin has accomplished
professionally and his work on these very GAC policy development issues
within INTA, they will simply roll their eyes if someone suggests he isn't
qualified.

 

It's not too late to course correct here.  

 

Regards,

Paul

 

 

 

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:53 AM
To: Paul McGrady; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

 

Paul - 

 

The notion that I am personally excluding this particular applicant is,
frankly, nonsense, and not supported by facts.

*       The determination that this applicant did not meet the criteria as
described in the Call for Volunteers was not my sole determination, but one
also expressed by the vice chairs, including the IPC/NCPH vice chair.
*       I have no idea what Registrars or the RrSG want in a GAC Liaison, as
I haven't consulted them.
*       I was, however, contacted by a CPH-affiliated individual about the
position, but asked them to reconsider volunteering, given that the role was
previously occupied by a member from the CPH, and that this person came up
short against the posted qualifications.
*       Clearly this candidate's qualifications are impressive and extensive
in other groups and venues, but we're seeking a specific skill set, namely
subject matter expertise in GNSO Policy Development. I don't believe we
should set aside this central requirement and simply choose a liaison by
default.  But as I noted earlier, it is possible that he might wish amend
his expression of interest to include other experiences, and this also
supports an extension.

Sorry to be so dull, but there's no grand conspiracy here to exclude the
NCPH or the IPC.  

 

Thanks-

 

J.

 

 

From: Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 9:17 
To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>, 'Susan Kawaguchi' <susank@xxxxxx>,
GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

 

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] 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>
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
<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=> 
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16
Internal Virus Database is out of date.