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

[Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks James. How about we strike it as written, and just say "whereas the 
volume of responses to the request for applications for the role was less 
robust than hoped for."

Best,
Paul


Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 20, 2016, at 8:50 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Paul -
> 
> You are correct, "incomplete" is probably not the best word. The intention 
> was to leave the door open for the lone application received to be 
> resubmitted.
> 
> I'm fine if we strike "incomplete", or even the entirety of WHEREAS 2.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> J.
> ____________
> James Bladel
> 
> 
>> On Jun 20, 2016, at 16:35, Paul McGrady <policy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> 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 -
>