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

["Edward Morris" <egmorris1@xxxxxxxxx>]

+1

Sent from my iPhone

> On 21 Jun 2016, at 12:40, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> I'm with you that WHEREAS 2 as originally suggested should be improved. 
> However expressing or describing hopes in a motion seems to bring in some 
> subjectivity which is difficult to assess. So I wonder whether this could be 
> acceptable:
> 
> 2.    The subsequent call for volunteers resulted in the decision to extend 
> the selection process.
> 
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Paul McGrady
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:28 AM
> To: James M. Bladel
> Cc: GNSO Council List
> Subject: Re: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO 
> Liaison to the GAC
> 
> 
> 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 -
>