RE: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC

["Paul McGrady" <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi James,

I am Ok with this, except I don't understand WHEREAS 2.  What element of the
application wasn't completed?  I thought from all that back and forth that
the reason to not move forward with the one candidate we had was that there
was only 1 applicant and, in the opinion of some, he didn't fit the bill.
This motion reads as if there was an application form that didn't have all
the checkmarks checked.  Can you please elaborate on what is meant by
"incomplete"?  Thanks in advance.

Best,
Paul


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of James M. Bladel
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 3:11 PM
To: GNSO Council List
Subject: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison
to the GAC

Councilors -

As discussed on the list a couple of weeks ago, please see this Motion
(attached and copied below) to extend the term of the current GNSO-GAC
Liaison (Mason) through ICANN57 in Hyderabad, and to adopt a new timeline
for selecting a successor liaison.

I¹ve also added a new action item (Whereas #5 and Resolved #3) which calls
for the development of a ³uniform selection process² as part of the
post-transition implementation work.  If adopted, this uniform selection
process would be employed in some capacity to fill future appointments to
Liaisons, Review Teams, and other working groups as necessary.

Thank you,

J.

________________________________________


Motion to extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC and confirm
the extended timeline for the selection process for the next GNSO liaison to
the GAC. 

 
Whereas:
 
1.The GNSO Council adopted the ŒRequest for Candidates ­ GNSO Liaison to the
GAC¹ which includes the proposed call for volunteers, application and
evaluation process (see
http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/request-liaison-gac-30mar16-en.pdf during
its meeting on 14 April 2016.

2.The subsequent call for volunteers resulted in one incomplete application
by the Deadline.

3.     The GNSO Leadership team shared with the Council its assessment
concerning the
misalignment of the current deadline and the fact that the terms of possible
candidates (e.g. former Council members) end at the ICANN AGM and as a
result proposed to extend the selection timeline as follows: 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.

4.     The current GNSO Liaison to the GAC has agreed to extend his term
until the ICANN AGM in Hyderabad.

5.     The GNSO Council leadership expects that appointments of this
nature will continue to be necessary in the future, and these selections
would benefit from a uniform selection process.
Additionally, the Council notes the upcoming implementation work associated
with the post-transition bylaws will include work on drafting a uniform
selection process, and this could be expanded to cover additional roles.

 
Resolved:
 
1. The GNSO Council hereby confirms the extension of the term of the current
GNSO Liaison to the GAC, Mason Cole, until the end of the ICANN AGM in
Hyderabad. 

2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the GNSO
Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies of the extended selection timeline
(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).

3. The Council instructs Staff to include consideration of a uniform
selection process as part of the work associated with implementing the
post-transition bylaws