Dear councilors, Following up from this thread, I would like to wrap up on the next steps for a potential EoI for the role of GNSO liaison to the GAC. Most concerns were relative to having a limit and a more thorough annual review. A limit of 4 years will be included in the next EoI if last week’s proposal is accepted, as well as an early report from the liaison. With the limited support for an EoI by ICANN75, with that notion of 4 years with the role and the fact that Jeff has been with the role for 2 years, I’m tempted to conclude that the group doesn’t see the need for an EoI _now_, and Jeff is expected to stay for another year in the role. I put this proposal candidly to the group - as Paul notes, silence may mean anything and everything, and there’s been limited support to launching an immediate EoI. If I missed something, or if with hindsight anyone has a concern with this (and duly noting that Manju expressed a preference), and would like an EoI to be launched, please say so by August 19th. Thank you, Best Regards, Philippe Orange Restricted From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of McGrady, Jr., Paul D. via council Sent: Monday, August 1, 2022 4:59 PM To: council@gnso icann. org <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] Regarding GAC liaison position Thanks Jeff. Hi Fellow Councilors, Shortly after Manju’s email I put out a request on the NCPH Councilor’s list seeking input into whether or not others shared her concerns. I did not hear from anyone in the CSG expressing a concern. In fairness, I have no idea whether or not the CPH has any such concerns, but I note their silence on the Council list. Of course, silence may equal assent or it may equal dissent - who can say? Regarding Manju’s proposal, I think it would be counterproductive to swap Jeff out under the theory that the liaison for SubPro and GAC should not be the same person. A few thoughts: 1. I haven’t seen any indication that Jeff isn’t handling both roles with great competency (and Manju seems to agree with that, i.e. “amazing job”). 2. I don’t see any inherent conflict in having the same person in both roles - both roles represent Council. Council to Staff (SubPro) and Council to GAC. I’m not sure what neutrality has to do with anything - we don’t want Jeff neutral. We want Jeff passing along and explaining to Staff and GAC, as the case may be, what Council is thinking and bringing back to Council what the other group is thinking and helping us think through it all, not being neutral on the issues. If the concern is that Jeff is going rogue and pushing his own views on to Staff and GAC, well, I’ve not seen any evidence of that and it would be very inconsistent with the amazing job that Manjo notes he is doing. 3. As Jeff notes, this issue was discussed before Jeff was selected as the ODP Liaison. At the time there was no objection and the Standing Selection Committee knew this (and so did we on the Council) when Jeff was appointed as well. 4. The SubPro Liaison position is supposed to end in December, a blink of the eye in our ICANNland glacial timeframe. I doubt we could even get a replacement in place by then even if we wanted to, which I don’t think we do. There does seem to be at least some support for the idea of term limits for the GAC Liaison (as for term limits on Councilors, I think that is an issue best left to each constituency and we shouldn’t conflate that with the question before us related to liaison positions). We should consider that the term limits for liaisons issue without entangling it in trying to replace Jeff this fall. It is two different issues, and only one of them seems to have legs to me. Looking forward to the thoughts of others. Best, Paul Taft / Paul D. McGrady, Jr. Partner PMcGrady@taftlaw.com<mailto:PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> Dir: 312.836.4094 | Cell: 312.882.5020 Tel: 312.527.4000 | Fax: 312.754.2354 111 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60601-3713 Download vCard<http://www.taftlaw.com/vcard/PMcGrady@taftlaw.com> taftlaw.com<http://www.taftlaw.com> This message may contain information that is attorney-client privileged, attorney work product or otherwise confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, use and disclosure of this message are prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments. From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of Jeff Neuman via council Sent: Monday, August 1, 2022 8:33 AM To: desiree-me <desiree-me@protonmail.com<mailto:desiree-me@protonmail.com>>; 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <manju@nii.org.tw<mailto:manju@nii.org.tw>> Cc: council@gnso icann. org <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Regarding GAC liaison position [EXTERNAL MESSAGE] Dear Desiree, Manju and Council, I believe term limits are a great discussion item and I wholeheartedly support having them. I was instrumental in getting the original term limits for DNSO/GNSO Councilors way back when so I completely understand the rationale for having them. To make things less complicated, I would propose similar term limits to GNSO Councilors (namely 4 years). Perhaps even consider two 2-year terms as opposed to having to renew every year. Most persons take a good 6-9 months to get comfortable in a position (about 2 ICANN meetings), so having 1-year terms never really made sense to me. By the time a person is comfortable in that role, it is time to get re-appointed. As I stated at the last GNSO Council meeting I do not believe my role as the ODP Liaison conflicts with my role as the GNSO Liaison to the GAC. In fact, I brought this up when I initially applied for the GNSO ODP Liaison position and both the CSC and the Council agreed that they saw no conflict. It was after the Council declared that there was no conflict that I took the ODP Position. Of course the Council can always take a different position this year with new Councilors based on actual events and performance. In any case, the ODP will be complete in December (about 2 months after the annual meeting). I am not sure there is a role for the ODP Liaison once the ODA is released. I would be happy to continue working on behalf of the Council on SubPro if there were such a position. And if there were I would gladly have someone else take the role of GAC liaison. But my understanding is that once an IRT is created, the GNSO Council can have a liaison to the IRT, but I think that may be limited to Councilors (which I am not one). I am happy to serve the Council as you all see fit. I like to see and help work actually get done. So please just let me know what you would like for me to do and I am happy to oblige. Sincerely, Jeff [cid:image001.png@01D8AB54.9016DE50] Jeffrey J. Neuman Founder & CEO JJN Solutions, LLC p: +1.202.549.5079 E: jeff@jjnsolutions.com<mailto:jeff@jjnsolutions.com> http://jjnsolutions.com From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces@gnso.icann.org>> On Behalf Of desiree-me via council Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2022 4:01 AM To: 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <manju@nii.org.tw<mailto:manju@nii.org.tw>> Cc: council@gnso icann. org <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] Regarding GAC liaison position Manju Thanks for the follow up and putting things in the perspective again. We didn't have much time to discuss this issue last time as it was in the AOB part of the call. As I said on the GNSO call, I support your views that from the governance point of view. It is important to review the term limits for the GNSO GAC liaison seat. I recall that the previous GAC GNSO liaison term was five years in total and it must have been extended because of the great job that the person did. The candidate can be doing a great job and her/his term can be extended, but it would be healthy to review and agree on those terms and any other possible considerations and circumstances we ought to take into consideration, I'd certainly like to discuss this more with fellow Council members and find a good working governance framework. Desiree -- On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 10:09, 陳曼茹 Manju Chen via council <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> wrote: Hi all, I'd like to follow up with our discussions in last week's Council meeting regarding opening the call for GAC liaison position. As emphasized in my intervention, this proposal shall not be seen as unsatisfaction for the current GAC liaison. Jeff has done an amazing job and we are extremely grateful for his time and devotion. However, I believe we as Council should not have one individual carrying out 2 critical liaison roles-the GAC liaison and SupPro liaison, both require impeccable neutrality. Again, this is not about the capability/performance of the individual but the Council's responsibility of making the two jobs clearly separated. We have obligations to ensure transparency and accountability of such processes and appointments. I proposed we open the position of GAC liaison and call for volunteers. As the deadline for SubPro ODA has been pushed to December this year, it goes without saying that subsequent work and discussions will continue until next year. I think we can all agree that the Council will feel crippled without Jeff as our SubPro ODP liaison. I've also suggested during last week's meeting that it is time for the Council to review the job description of GAC liaison, specifically, considering adding term limits for the role. I believe this will be another step towards better accountability and transparency of the GNSO Council. Thank you for reading this lengthy email. I look forward to further discussions! Best, Manju _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
