RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

["Austin, Donna" <Donna.Austin@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Paul

Putting aside the rhetoric, there is no conspiracy because the candidate was 
from the IPC. The information provided in the EOI was minimal at best and as 
James has already noted, did not, in our view, meet the necessary criteria. As 
this was the only EOI received, the GNSO Leadership team had a conversation on 
how best to move forward and as a result we agreed to extend the call for 
candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57. The extension would not exclude the 
current candidate and would allow him the opportunity to provide more detailed 
information about his skills and experience for the position.

Donna

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Paul McGrady
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 7:58 AM
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> 
[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>