RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

["Paul McGrady" <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Amr.  The questions were noted as rhetorical for a reason and were 
designed to show that this process is seriously broken.  

 

Donna, I saw you also wrote putting forward the “non-conspiracy” theory.  As 
mentioned before, I agree with that but that doesn’t make the process unbroken 
nor does it help with how this will be perceived.  If we had a good, open, and 
transparent process fairly applied to all and this was the outcome we reached, 
that would be just fine.  However, that is not what we are dealing with.

 

Stephanie, thanks for your note.  I think your ideas on process should be 
incorporated into an open and predictable process developed and agreed upon in 
advance of our next attempt to fill this role.  

 

All, apologies for not responding to any follow up emails.  If I thought my 
continuing to engage on this topic would help us do the right thing, I would 
keep at it.  But, given that I seem to be the lone voice here, I bow to, but do 
not consent to, what appears to be a fait accompli.     

 

Best,

Paul

 

 

 

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

 

Hi Paul,

 

There are simply too many statements you make in your last email that I 
disagree with, and you present them as pre-stablished facts that set the 
context for your (rhetorical) questions.

 

Specifically:

 

On Jun 8, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

[SNIP]

 

(the vacuum now being dealt with by the disclosure of the applicant that James 
has pre-disqualified

 

I don’t agree that there is anything to support what you say here — that James 
has pre-disqualified anyone.





even though that applicant is more than qualified,

 

I haven’t read the EOI, but from your own description of Colin’s experience, my 
opinion is that saying he is “more than qualified” can be easily challenged. I, 
for one (and based on the limited information I have), don’t agree with your 
assertion.





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.”

 

I don’t know about pre-disqualification, but yes…, I was under the impression 
that the Council “leadership” may need to turn down certain applications that 
are felt to not satisfy the requirements of the position. By the way…, it was 
the Council “leadership” that made this appointment back when Mason had applied 
for the job. I don’t recall there being any concerns expressed about this at 
the time, although I may have forgotten.





  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?

 

James is only one third of the Council “leadership”, Paul. Nothing here rested 
“only with James”.

 

[SNIP]





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.

 

I don’t see why you believe that the IPC has been targeted for exclusion. Could 
you please explain why you believe this to be true? To me, it seems like the 
only exclusion (or more accurately; disqualification) made was for the 
individual applicant.

 

Having said all that, Paul, there are some points you make that I believe 
warrant discussion, and this is perhaps a discussion we should have had before 
this process began. At the beginning of your email you said:

 

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

 

Later on, you asked — and I know you said the questions were rhetorical ;-):

 

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?

 

If memory serves, when the GNSO Council announced a call for applications for 
GNSO reverse liaisons to the GAC the first time around (when Mason was first 
selected), the EOIs were not confidential — and there were several of them last 
time around. They were shared on the Council list, despite the Council 
“leadership” making the final decision.

 

This time, the process has changed to make the EOIs confidential. Like I said 
in an earlier email, I do not mind this. I believe that to publish them, the 
applicants should provide consent. The GNSO Council has several liaisons to 
groups that it charters. The differences between those liaisons and this one is 
probably that this liaison is to an AC (so obviously not chartered by the 
GNSO), but also that this liaison is provided travel support to participate in 
ICANN meetings.

 

Seems fair to me that we have a discussion about whether or not the EOIs should 
be confidential. Ideally before another application round in the fall?

 

Thanks.

 

Amr