Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update

[David Cake <davecake@xxxxxxxxx>]

One last comment - last time, we got a good number of candidates, and
several were exceptionally qualified. Mason was selected narrowly over at
least two others I recall who were also very solidly qualified.
This time we got a single candidate who fitted the main stated
qualifications poorly, whatever their other qualifications.
That, if nothing else, is such a disparity it would qualify extending the
period for nomination, in my opinion. This position has a specific role to
serve the GNSO - if we can't find someone who is well suited, we don't need
to fill the position.
That said, if council feels like revisiting the procedure, no reason we
shouldn't - though I'm happy to leave it up to leadership?

David

On Thursday, 9 June 2016, Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks Keith.  So far only your email, James’ and Donna’s references any
> conspiracy.  My do not.  The conspiracy theory is a straw man which appears
> to be designed to distract from discussing the broken process and I’m not
> interested in addressing it further.  Sorry if not go along to get along is
> viewed as unconstructive or non-collegial.  I have, however, learned an
> important lesson in how one will be painted if they object to a broken
> process.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx');> [mailto:
> owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx');>] *On
> Behalf Of *Drazek, Keith
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 08, 2016 11:20 AM
> *To:* Paul McGrady; 'James M. Bladel'; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'GNSO Council
> List'
> *Subject:* RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
>
>
>
> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx');> [
> mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx');> [
> mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx');>>
> *Date: *Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 9:17
> *To: *James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx');>>, 'Susan Kawaguchi'
> <susank@xxxxxx <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','susank@xxxxxx');>>, GNSO
> Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx');> [
> mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','susank@xxxxxx');>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42
> *To: *James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx');>>, Paul McGrady <
> policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx');>>, Phil Corwin <
> psc@xxxxxxxxxxx <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','psc@xxxxxxxxxxx');>>, GNSO
> Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx');>> on behalf
> of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx');>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM
> *To: *Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx');>>, 'Phil Corwin' <
> psc@xxxxxxxxxxx <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','psc@xxxxxxxxxxx');>>, 'GNSO
> Council List' <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx');>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35
> *To: *James Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx');>>, Phil Corwin <
> psc@xxxxxxxxxxx <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','psc@xxxxxxxxxxx');>>, GNSO
> Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx');> [
> mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','psc@xxxxxxxxxxx');>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08
> *To: *Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx');>>, James Bladel <
> jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx');>>,
> GNSO Council List <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx');> [
> mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx');> [
> mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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.
>