RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

["Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul,

With all due respect, you clearly suggested that James and the CPH somehow 
orchestrated the elimination of a IPC candidate because he was an IPC 
candidate, which is completely false and, frankly, disappointing. You can try 
to walk that back now by calling it a blunder, but that's not what you alleged 
and your unfortunate approach to this has been neither constructive nor 
collegial. Have you raised this issue directly with Heather, the 
IPC/NCPH-appointed Co-Chair to get her views on the process?

On substance, experience with GAC Policy Development is very different than 
GNSO Policy Development. We need our GNSO Liaison to the GAC to be able to 
explain, educate, and, at times, argue for the importance of the GNSO views, 
procedures and positions. Without direct experience with our processes,  I 
don't see how a candidate can perform the function, which is why we established 
it as a key criteria for selection.  If Colin has such experience, or can 
volunteer for participation in GNSO PDPs or WGs  in the coming months, he is in 
no way disqualified. You seem to be arguing that we should accept a candidate 
by default because he was the only candidate, when it appears his stated 
qualifications did not meet our established requirements.

Finally, by my read, it appears that the process we all agreed to in Marrakech 
has been followed.

Regards,
Keith

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Paul McGrady
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 11:39 AM
To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'GNSO Council List'
Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

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> 
[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<mailto:policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 9:17
To: James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx>>, 'Susan 
Kawaguchi' <susank@xxxxxx<mailto:susank@xxxxxx>>, GNSO Council List 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto: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> 
[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<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.