ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

1. I agree with Ed here. Council experience is a must, in my view. I would say government experience is also highly desirable, but too few ICANNers appear to have it.
2. I think one applicant is an insufficient number. Timing was bad for the process, it will be better in the fall.
3. Since Mason has very kindly agreed to continue, what is wrong with Paul's candidate re-applying in the fall? In terms of transparency and privacy issues, since we do not have a transparent process for candidate selection on other nominated groups (eg. the referenced CCT committee selection process) I think it a bit unfair to critique James' role in this. One candidate is too few, that seems very logical to me. 

Kind regards,

Stephanie Perrin


On 2016-06-08 11:31, Edward Morris wrote:

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
    <mailto: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 <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]*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]*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]*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.

    <GNSO Liaison to the GAC - call for candidates - FINAL 30 March
    2016v1[1][1].doc>
<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>