Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

[Volker Greimann <vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Frankly,  I am disappointed in this attempt to both shoehorn a 
particular candidate into position ("Let’s do the right thing and move 
forward with confirming Colin for this position") and at the same time 
cast James in a partisan light ("why the folks you represent on Council 
may be unhappy"), when it was the entire leadership team that made this 
decision.
Let's leave such antics to the Trump team.

If Colin is indeed qualified for the position, maybe he should have made 
a better case in his application instead of providing a minimalistic EOI 
and he can always re-submit his application during the extention and 
make a better case. While the process could have been more transparent, 
I have full confidence that this couse of action will allow for a better 
result, which may be Colin after all.
Just because there is only one candidate for a given position does not 
mean that he has to be chosen. I believe such a course of action was 
also adopted by the CSG when it came to the election process for the 
GNSO council leadership a few months back. If the candidate does not 
appear qualified, extending the search for candidates is a good result, 
especially when the previous holder of the position is willing to stay 
on until his replacement is found.
I had hoped we as a council would be able to move beyond partisan 
politics and focus on doing our job as best we can to the benefit of the 
entire community.
Best,

Volker



Am 08.06.2016 um 17:33 schrieb Paul McGrady:
> 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
>     <mailto: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>[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.
--
Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann
- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede 
Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist 
unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per 
E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

--------------------------------------------

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann
- legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH
Im Oberen Werk 1
66386 St. Ingbert
Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
www.facebook.com/KeySystems
www.twitter.com/key_systems

CEO: Alexander Siffrin
Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken
V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
www.keydrive.lu

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is 
addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this 
email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an 
addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the 
author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.