Dear All, The motion has been modified accordingly with the friendly amendment from Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Volker Greimann has been noted as seconding the amended motion. https://community.icann.org/x/EwSOAw Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: mardi 21 juin 2016 16:30 Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC Thanks all for weighing in. There currently isn¹t a second to the motion, so I take these changes as friendly and ask that Marika & team modify the WHEREAS 2 language accordingly (the most recent version submitted by Wolf-Ulrich, below). J. On 6/21/16, 6:50 , "Paul McGrady" <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
Thanks WU. I think that is fine since it reflects the reality of what happened and doesn't require any sort of judgment on the quality of the sole applicant. Thanks!
Best, Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 21, 2016, at 6:35 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> 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@godaddy.com> 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@paulmcgrady.com> 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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] 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 -