[council] GAC Liaison - Update

[David Cake <davecake@xxxxxxxxx>]

I don't know if the leadership team were planning on using a process
similar to the one we used to select Mason, but assuming they were doing so:
- we treated candidates as applying as individuals, not as representatives
of SG/Cs, and we assumed that they would therefore be confidential from the
start. I agree with James that if confidentiality was the expectation, then
it should be retained.
- we set out criteria in creating the position before we evaluated the
candidates, and our selection process was directly related to how well they
matched those criteria to rank candidates.
- experience in the GNSO PDP process and GNSO procedure were vital in our
selection last year
- I do not believe SG/C affiliation played any explicit role in the way we
selected candidates last year, and I would assume similarly this year.

I think I would have taken a similar position in the same situation. I
support the leadership decision.

David

On Wednesday, 8 June 2016, Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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:* 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-SFun5NBlbBvWEeTyBXJec7jH8lma0&s=7sxeiejezt0AVXvDbIEyoJDh0dZhmITjW8AQWxiAfc4&e=>
> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>
>
>