Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I'd like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO - GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks- J. ________________________________ 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
I think this is the appropriate way for this process and fully agree. Thanks James and thanks Mason for staying extra time. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 3:37 AM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I’d like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO – GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks— J. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
Hi James, Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks! Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I'd like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO - GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks- J. _____ 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
I'm inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term "underwhelming" denote no applications? Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks! Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I'd like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO - GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks- J. ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Hi Phil & Paul - We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago. Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil's point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.) Apologies if this sounds like I'm being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall. Hope this helps. Thanks- J. From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update I'm inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term "underwhelming" denote no applications? Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks! Best, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I'd like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO - GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks- J. ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Thanks James. Experience with the GNSO Council and/or with PDP working groups are clearly very important considerations and qualifications. Best, Keith From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 12:11 PM To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Phil & Paul - We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago. Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil's point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.) Apologies if this sounds like I'm being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall. Hope this helps. Thanks- J. From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update I'm inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term "underwhelming" denote no applications? Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks! Best, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I'd like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO - GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks- J. ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
In view of that level of application, I think leaving this for a later date was the right call, thank you James. David
On 8 Jun 2016, at 12:29 AM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@Verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks James.
Experience with the GNSO Council and/or with PDP working groups are clearly very important considerations and qualifications.
Best, Keith
<> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 12:11 PM To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi Phil & Paul -
We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago.
Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil’s point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.)
Apologies if this sounds like I’m being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall.
Hope this helps.
Thanks—
J.
From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
I’m inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term “underwhelming” denote no applications?
Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously.
Best to all, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi James,
Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks!
Best, Paul
From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Dear Council Colleagues -
Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad.
Therefore, with this in mind, I’d like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO – GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors.
Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason.
Thanks—
J.
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 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Hi James, I guess until I know who's offer of help we are turning down, I'm not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don't think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request? Regards, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Phil & Paul - We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago. Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil's point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.) Apologies if this sounds like I'm being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall. Hope this helps. Thanks- J. From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update I'm inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term "underwhelming" denote no applications? Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks! Best, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I'd like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO - GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks- J. _____ 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 _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Hi Paul - Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected. I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall. Thanks— J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, I guess until I know who’s offer of help we are turning down, I’m not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don’t think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request? Regards, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Phil & Paul - We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago. Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil’s point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.) Apologies if this sounds like I’m being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall. Hope this helps. Thanks— J. From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update I’m inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term “underwhelming” denote no applications? Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks! Best, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I’d like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO – GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks— J. ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Hi James, We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn’t understand why this had to be secretive at that time. Who would make the selection if we had enough candidates? The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and who was selected on the team. I think we aim for more transparency. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Paul - Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected. I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall. Thanks— J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, I guess until I know who’s offer of help we are turning down, I’m not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don’t think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request? Regards, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Phil & Paul - We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago. Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil’s point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.) Apologies if this sounds like I’m being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall. Hope this helps. Thanks— J. From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update I’m inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term “underwhelming” denote no applications? Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks! Best, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I’d like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO – GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks— J. ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMF-g&c=5...> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Hi Susan - You are correct, and I do recall the Council's conversation in Marrakesh, but the group didn’t come to a decision either way. Referencing the selection process and criteria contained in the "Call for Candidates"(attached) that was adopted by the Council and distributed by Glen to the SGs and Cs, we note under “skills and experience” that: * Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or review in the GNSO And * A former or recently departed GNSO Councilor is likely to be well-qualified for the position but this is not a necessary criterion for the Liaison. With the first being held up as a requirement, and the second expressed more as a “plus”. In our current situation, I can report that we received one submission, and it did not meet ether criteria. This could be because the candidate lacks the requested experience, or because their submitted Expression of Interest was incomplete. We also received a handful (~3) verbal inquiries from other candidates, but those were later withdrawn. In all scenarios, I believe our selection would benefit from extending the call for candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57. If it the consensus of the Council is that we now publish the submission received (including the candidate’s name), then I would ask Council to grant me the opportunity to go back to that candidate and obtain their consent, and that publication of the EOI should only proceed if the candidate agrees. Thanks— J. From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn’t understand why this had to be secretive at that time. Who would make the selection if we had enough candidates? The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and who was selected on the team. I think we aim for more transparency. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Paul - Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected. I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall. Thanks— J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, I guess until I know who’s offer of help we are turning down, I’m not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don’t think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request? Regards, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Phil & Paul - We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago. Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil’s point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.) Apologies if this sounds like I’m being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall. Hope this helps. Thanks— J. From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update I’m inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term “underwhelming” denote no applications? Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks! Best, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I’d like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO – GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks— J. ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMF-g&c=5...> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
After James’ open information I can’t see any disadvantage to leave it as is and proceed with a further round as suggested. During the call for candidates period I personally had communication with several people I thought they could fill the job suitably and might have an interest to do so. As James pointed out timing of the announcement did not fit since those had still commitments in WGs or other GNSO areas. I’m confident of a better response later this year. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 1:59 PM To: Susan Kawaguchi ; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Susan - You are correct, and I do recall the Council's conversation in Marrakesh, but the group didn’t come to a decision either way. Referencing the selection process and criteria contained in the "Call for Candidates"(attached) that was adopted by the Council and distributed by Glen to the SGs and Cs, we note under “skills and experience” that: * Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or review in the GNSO And * A former or recently departed GNSO Councilor is likely to be well-qualified for the position but this is not a necessary criterion for the Liaison. With the first being held up as a requirement, and the second expressed more as a “plus”. In our current situation, I can report that we received one submission, and it did not meet ether criteria. This could be because the candidate lacks the requested experience, or because their submitted Expression of Interest was incomplete. We also received a handful (~3) verbal inquiries from other candidates, but those were later withdrawn. In all scenarios, I believe our selection would benefit from extending the call for candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57. If it the consensus of the Council is that we now publish the submission received (including the candidate’s name), then I would ask Council to grant me the opportunity to go back to that candidate and obtain their consent, and that publication of the EOI should only proceed if the candidate agrees. Thanks— J. From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn’t understand why this had to be secretive at that time. Who would make the selection if we had enough candidates? The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and who was selected on the team. I think we aim for more transparency. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Paul - Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected. I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall. Thanks— J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, I guess until I know who’s offer of help we are turning down, I’m not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don’t think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request? Regards, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Phil & Paul - We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago. Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil’s point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.) Apologies if this sounds like I’m being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall. Hope this helps. Thanks— J. From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update I’m inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term “underwhelming” denote no applications? Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks! Best, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I’d like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO – GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks— J. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Hi James, This is very disturbing. I happen to know that Colin O'Brien, an IPC member expressed interest, so the person you are attempting to exclude is - naturally - an IPC member. I do not, and in the strongest terms, agree with your conclusion that Colin is unqualified. The facts reveal quite the opposite. Colin is the Chair of INTA's Subcommittee on GAC issues where he oversees approximately 25 volunteers all focus on policy issues related to the GAC. His policy work has been extremely important to the development of policy through his role at INTA and the IPC. He has a long history of being at ICANN meetings - where you will find him in every GAC session, being a careful student of the process, and going back to lead policy efforts in his role within INTA. I can understand why the folks you represent on Council may be unhappy that they could not locate a volunteer to step forward, but that is not the same thing as Colin - a bright young lawyer with an international practice focusing in the ICANN space - being unqualified (unless being an IPC member is an automatic disqualification, in which case let's just state that openly and discuss whether or not that is appropriate). . So, I say that Colin is not only qualified, but that he is the most qualified of any candidate that came forward. I see no reason to allow one SC to set the agenda here nor do I see any reason to exclude IPC members from this important role. Let's do the right thing and move forward with confirming Colin for this position. Regards, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:59 AM To: Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Susan - You are correct, and I do recall the Council's conversation in Marrakesh, but the group didn't come to a decision either way. Referencing the selection process and criteria contained in the "Call for Candidates"(attached) that was adopted by the Council and distributed by Glen to the SGs and Cs, we note under "skills and experience" that: * Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or review in the GNSO And * A former or recently departed GNSO Councilor is likely to be well-qualified for the position but this is not a necessary criterion for the Liaison. With the first being held up as a requirement, and the second expressed more as a "plus". In our current situation, I can report that we received one submission, and it did not meet ether criteria. This could be because the candidate lacks the requested experience, or because their submitted Expression of Interest was incomplete. We also received a handful (~3) verbal inquiries from other candidates, but those were later withdrawn. In all scenarios, I believe our selection would benefit from extending the call for candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57. If it the consensus of the Council is that we now publish the submission received (including the candidate's name), then I would ask Council to grant me the opportunity to go back to that candidate and obtain their consent, and that publication of the EOI should only proceed if the candidate agrees. Thanks- J. From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn't understand why this had to be secretive at that time. Who would make the selection if we had enough candidates? The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and who was selected on the team. I think we aim for more transparency. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Paul - Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected. I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall. Thanks- J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, I guess until I know who's offer of help we are turning down, I'm not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don't think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request? Regards, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Phil & Paul - We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago. Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil's point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.) Apologies if this sounds like I'm being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall. Hope this helps. Thanks- J. From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update I'm inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term "underwhelming" denote no applications? Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks! Best, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I'd like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO - GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks- J. _____ 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 _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMF-g&c= 5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=hXC3Qj-mLg92Z-SFun5NBlbBvW EeTyBXJec7jH8lma0&s=7sxeiejezt0AVXvDbIEyoJDh0dZhmITjW8AQWxiAfc4&e=> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Paul - The notion that I am personally excluding this particular applicant is, frankly, nonsense, and not supported by facts. * The determination that this applicant did not meet the criteria as described in the Call for Volunteers was not my sole determination, but one also expressed by the vice chairs, including the IPC/NCPH vice chair. * I have no idea what Registrars or the RrSG want in a GAC Liaison, as I haven't consulted them. * I was, however, contacted by a CPH-affiliated individual about the position, but asked them to reconsider volunteering, given that the role was previously occupied by a member from the CPH, and that this person came up short against the posted qualifications. * Clearly this candidate’s qualifications are impressive and extensive in other groups and venues, but we're seeking a specific skill set, namely subject matter expertise in GNSO Policy Development. I don’t believe we should set aside this central requirement and simply choose a liaison by default. But as I noted earlier, it is possible that he might wish amend his expression of interest to include other experiences, and this also supports an extension. Sorry to be so dull, but there’s no grand conspiracy here to exclude the NCPH or the IPC. Thanks— J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 9:17 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, 'Susan Kawaguchi' <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, This is very disturbing. I happen to know that Colin O’Brien, an IPC member expressed interest, so the person you are attempting to exclude is – naturally – an IPC member. I do not, and in the strongest terms, agree with your conclusion that Colin is unqualified. The facts reveal quite the opposite. Colin is the Chair of INTA’s Subcommittee on GAC issues where he oversees approximately 25 volunteers all focus on policy issues related to the GAC. His policy work has been extremely important to the development of policy through his role at INTA and the IPC. He has a long history of being at ICANN meetings – where you will find him in every GAC session, being a careful student of the process, and going back to lead policy efforts in his role within INTA. I can understand why the folks you represent on Council may be unhappy that they could not locate a volunteer to step forward, but that is not the same thing as Colin – a bright young lawyer with an international practice focusing in the ICANN space – being unqualified (unless being an IPC member is an automatic disqualification, in which case let’s just state that openly and discuss whether or not that is appropriate). . So, I say that Colin is not only qualified, but that he is the most qualified of any candidate that came forward. I see no reason to allow one SC to set the agenda here nor do I see any reason to exclude IPC members from this important role. Let’s do the right thing and move forward with confirming Colin for this position. Regards, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:59 AM To: Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Susan - You are correct, and I do recall the Council's conversation in Marrakesh, but the group didn’t come to a decision either way. Referencing the selection process and criteria contained in the "Call for Candidates"(attached) that was adopted by the Council and distributed by Glen to the SGs and Cs, we note under “skills and experience” that: * Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or review in the GNSO And * A former or recently departed GNSO Councilor is likely to be well-qualified for the position but this is not a necessary criterion for the Liaison. With the first being held up as a requirement, and the second expressed more as a “plus”. In our current situation, I can report that we received one submission, and it did not meet ether criteria. This could be because the candidate lacks the requested experience, or because their submitted Expression of Interest was incomplete. We also received a handful (~3) verbal inquiries from other candidates, but those were later withdrawn. In all scenarios, I believe our selection would benefit from extending the call for candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57. If it the consensus of the Council is that we now publish the submission received (including the candidate’s name), then I would ask Council to grant me the opportunity to go back to that candidate and obtain their consent, and that publication of the EOI should only proceed if the candidate agrees. Thanks— J. From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn’t understand why this had to be secretive at that time. Who would make the selection if we had enough candidates? The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and who was selected on the team. I think we aim for more transparency. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Paul - Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected. I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall. Thanks— J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, I guess until I know who’s offer of help we are turning down, I’m not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don’t think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request? Regards, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Phil & Paul - We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago. Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil’s point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.) Apologies if this sounds like I’m being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall. Hope this helps. Thanks— J. From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update I’m inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term “underwhelming” denote no applications? Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks! Best, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I’d like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO – GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks— J. ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMF-g&c=5...> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
James, Painting me as a conspiracy theorist isn't helpful. Let me be very clear, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and I personally think this is just a blunder not a conspiracy. Pre-disqualifying a candidate and then asking the Council to ratify that without the full data set, and then resisting multiple requests for the full data set - while perhaps not a conspiracy - is simple not the way things should be done. Importantly, however, you need to realize how this will be viewed by many within the IPC, namely that their candidate was blocked for no other reason than his membership in the IPC. Given what Colin has accomplished professionally and his work on these very GAC policy development issues within INTA, they will simply roll their eyes if someone suggests he isn't qualified. It's not too late to course correct here. Regards, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:53 AM To: Paul McGrady; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Paul - The notion that I am personally excluding this particular applicant is, frankly, nonsense, and not supported by facts. * The determination that this applicant did not meet the criteria as described in the Call for Volunteers was not my sole determination, but one also expressed by the vice chairs, including the IPC/NCPH vice chair. * I have no idea what Registrars or the RrSG want in a GAC Liaison, as I haven't consulted them. * I was, however, contacted by a CPH-affiliated individual about the position, but asked them to reconsider volunteering, given that the role was previously occupied by a member from the CPH, and that this person came up short against the posted qualifications. * Clearly this candidate's qualifications are impressive and extensive in other groups and venues, but we're seeking a specific skill set, namely subject matter expertise in GNSO Policy Development. I don't believe we should set aside this central requirement and simply choose a liaison by default. But as I noted earlier, it is possible that he might wish amend his expression of interest to include other experiences, and this also supports an extension. Sorry to be so dull, but there's no grand conspiracy here to exclude the NCPH or the IPC. Thanks- J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 9:17 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, 'Susan Kawaguchi' <susank@fb.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, This is very disturbing. I happen to know that Colin O'Brien, an IPC member expressed interest, so the person you are attempting to exclude is - naturally - an IPC member. I do not, and in the strongest terms, agree with your conclusion that Colin is unqualified. The facts reveal quite the opposite. Colin is the Chair of INTA's Subcommittee on GAC issues where he oversees approximately 25 volunteers all focus on policy issues related to the GAC. His policy work has been extremely important to the development of policy through his role at INTA and the IPC. He has a long history of being at ICANN meetings - where you will find him in every GAC session, being a careful student of the process, and going back to lead policy efforts in his role within INTA. I can understand why the folks you represent on Council may be unhappy that they could not locate a volunteer to step forward, but that is not the same thing as Colin - a bright young lawyer with an international practice focusing in the ICANN space - being unqualified (unless being an IPC member is an automatic disqualification, in which case let's just state that openly and discuss whether or not that is appropriate). . So, I say that Colin is not only qualified, but that he is the most qualified of any candidate that came forward. I see no reason to allow one SC to set the agenda here nor do I see any reason to exclude IPC members from this important role. Let's do the right thing and move forward with confirming Colin for this position. Regards, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:59 AM To: Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Susan - You are correct, and I do recall the Council's conversation in Marrakesh, but the group didn't come to a decision either way. Referencing the selection process and criteria contained in the "Call for Candidates"(attached) that was adopted by the Council and distributed by Glen to the SGs and Cs, we note under "skills and experience" that: * Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or review in the GNSO And * A former or recently departed GNSO Councilor is likely to be well-qualified for the position but this is not a necessary criterion for the Liaison. With the first being held up as a requirement, and the second expressed more as a "plus". In our current situation, I can report that we received one submission, and it did not meet ether criteria. This could be because the candidate lacks the requested experience, or because their submitted Expression of Interest was incomplete. We also received a handful (~3) verbal inquiries from other candidates, but those were later withdrawn. In all scenarios, I believe our selection would benefit from extending the call for candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57. If it the consensus of the Council is that we now publish the submission received (including the candidate's name), then I would ask Council to grant me the opportunity to go back to that candidate and obtain their consent, and that publication of the EOI should only proceed if the candidate agrees. Thanks- J. From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn't understand why this had to be secretive at that time. Who would make the selection if we had enough candidates? The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and who was selected on the team. I think we aim for more transparency. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Paul - Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected. I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall. Thanks- J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, I guess until I know who's offer of help we are turning down, I'm not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don't think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request? Regards, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Phil & Paul - We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago. Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil's point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.) Apologies if this sounds like I'm being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall. Hope this helps. Thanks- J. From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update I'm inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term "underwhelming" denote no applications? Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks! Best, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I'd like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO - GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks- J. _____ 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 _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMF-g&c= 5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=hXC3Qj-mLg92Z-SFun5NBlbBvW EeTyBXJec7jH8lma0&s=7sxeiejezt0AVXvDbIEyoJDh0dZhmITjW8AQWxiAfc4&e=> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Paul, With all due respect, you clearly suggested that James and the CPH somehow orchestrated the elimination of a IPC candidate because he was an IPC candidate, which is completely false and, frankly, disappointing. You can try to walk that back now by calling it a blunder, but that's not what you alleged and your unfortunate approach to this has been neither constructive nor collegial. Have you raised this issue directly with Heather, the IPC/NCPH-appointed Co-Chair to get her views on the process? On substance, experience with GAC Policy Development is very different than GNSO Policy Development. We need our GNSO Liaison to the GAC to be able to explain, educate, and, at times, argue for the importance of the GNSO views, procedures and positions. Without direct experience with our processes, I don't see how a candidate can perform the function, which is why we established it as a key criteria for selection. If Colin has such experience, or can volunteer for participation in GNSO PDPs or WGs in the coming months, he is in no way disqualified. You seem to be arguing that we should accept a candidate by default because he was the only candidate, when it appears his stated qualifications did not meet our established requirements. Finally, by my read, it appears that the process we all agreed to in Marrakech has been followed. Regards, Keith From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 11:39 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update James, Painting me as a conspiracy theorist isn't helpful. Let me be very clear, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and I personally think this is just a blunder not a conspiracy. Pre-disqualifying a candidate and then asking the Council to ratify that without the full data set, and then resisting multiple requests for the full data set - while perhaps not a conspiracy - is simple not the way things should be done. Importantly, however, you need to realize how this will be viewed by many within the IPC, namely that their candidate was blocked for no other reason than his membership in the IPC. Given what Colin has accomplished professionally and his work on these very GAC policy development issues within INTA, they will simply roll their eyes if someone suggests he isn't qualified. It's not too late to course correct here. Regards, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:53 AM To: Paul McGrady; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Paul - The notion that I am personally excluding this particular applicant is, frankly, nonsense, and not supported by facts. * The determination that this applicant did not meet the criteria as described in the Call for Volunteers was not my sole determination, but one also expressed by the vice chairs, including the IPC/NCPH vice chair. * I have no idea what Registrars or the RrSG want in a GAC Liaison, as I haven't consulted them. * I was, however, contacted by a CPH-affiliated individual about the position, but asked them to reconsider volunteering, given that the role was previously occupied by a member from the CPH, and that this person came up short against the posted qualifications. * Clearly this candidate's qualifications are impressive and extensive in other groups and venues, but we're seeking a specific skill set, namely subject matter expertise in GNSO Policy Development. I don't believe we should set aside this central requirement and simply choose a liaison by default. But as I noted earlier, it is possible that he might wish amend his expression of interest to include other experiences, and this also supports an extension. Sorry to be so dull, but there's no grand conspiracy here to exclude the NCPH or the IPC. Thanks- J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 9:17 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, 'Susan Kawaguchi' <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, This is very disturbing. I happen to know that Colin O'Brien, an IPC member expressed interest, so the person you are attempting to exclude is - naturally - an IPC member. I do not, and in the strongest terms, agree with your conclusion that Colin is unqualified. The facts reveal quite the opposite. Colin is the Chair of INTA's Subcommittee on GAC issues where he oversees approximately 25 volunteers all focus on policy issues related to the GAC. His policy work has been extremely important to the development of policy through his role at INTA and the IPC. He has a long history of being at ICANN meetings - where you will find him in every GAC session, being a careful student of the process, and going back to lead policy efforts in his role within INTA. I can understand why the folks you represent on Council may be unhappy that they could not locate a volunteer to step forward, but that is not the same thing as Colin - a bright young lawyer with an international practice focusing in the ICANN space - being unqualified (unless being an IPC member is an automatic disqualification, in which case let's just state that openly and discuss whether or not that is appropriate). . So, I say that Colin is not only qualified, but that he is the most qualified of any candidate that came forward. I see no reason to allow one SC to set the agenda here nor do I see any reason to exclude IPC members from this important role. Let's do the right thing and move forward with confirming Colin for this position. Regards, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:59 AM To: Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Susan - You are correct, and I do recall the Council's conversation in Marrakesh, but the group didn't come to a decision either way. Referencing the selection process and criteria contained in the "Call for Candidates"(attached) that was adopted by the Council and distributed by Glen to the SGs and Cs, we note under "skills and experience" that: * Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or review in the GNSO And * A former or recently departed GNSO Councilor is likely to be well-qualified for the position but this is not a necessary criterion for the Liaison. With the first being held up as a requirement, and the second expressed more as a "plus". In our current situation, I can report that we received one submission, and it did not meet ether criteria. This could be because the candidate lacks the requested experience, or because their submitted Expression of Interest was incomplete. We also received a handful (~3) verbal inquiries from other candidates, but those were later withdrawn. In all scenarios, I believe our selection would benefit from extending the call for candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57. If it the consensus of the Council is that we now publish the submission received (including the candidate's name), then I would ask Council to grant me the opportunity to go back to that candidate and obtain their consent, and that publication of the EOI should only proceed if the candidate agrees. Thanks- J. From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn't understand why this had to be secretive at that time. Who would make the selection if we had enough candidates? The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and who was selected on the team. I think we aim for more transparency. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Paul - Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected. I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall. Thanks- J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, I guess until I know who's offer of help we are turning down, I'm not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don't think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request? Regards, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Phil & Paul - We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago. Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil's point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.) Apologies if this sounds like I'm being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall. Hope this helps. Thanks- J. From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update I'm inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term "underwhelming" denote no applications? Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks! Best, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I'd like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO - GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks- J. ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMF-g&c=5...> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Thanks Keith. So far only your email, James' and Donna's references any conspiracy. My do not. The conspiracy theory is a straw man which appears to be designed to distract from discussing the broken process and I'm not interested in addressing it further. Sorry if not go along to get along is viewed as unconstructive or non-collegial. I have, however, learned an important lesson in how one will be painted if they object to a broken process. Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 11:20 AM To: Paul McGrady; 'James M. Bladel'; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Paul, With all due respect, you clearly suggested that James and the CPH somehow orchestrated the elimination of a IPC candidate because he was an IPC candidate, which is completely false and, frankly, disappointing. You can try to walk that back now by calling it a blunder, but that's not what you alleged and your unfortunate approach to this has been neither constructive nor collegial. Have you raised this issue directly with Heather, the IPC/NCPH-appointed Co-Chair to get her views on the process? On substance, experience with GAC Policy Development is very different than GNSO Policy Development. We need our GNSO Liaison to the GAC to be able to explain, educate, and, at times, argue for the importance of the GNSO views, procedures and positions. Without direct experience with our processes, I don't see how a candidate can perform the function, which is why we established it as a key criteria for selection. If Colin has such experience, or can volunteer for participation in GNSO PDPs or WGs in the coming months, he is in no way disqualified. You seem to be arguing that we should accept a candidate by default because he was the only candidate, when it appears his stated qualifications did not meet our established requirements. Finally, by my read, it appears that the process we all agreed to in Marrakech has been followed. Regards, Keith From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 11:39 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update James, Painting me as a conspiracy theorist isn't helpful. Let me be very clear, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and I personally think this is just a blunder not a conspiracy. Pre-disqualifying a candidate and then asking the Council to ratify that without the full data set, and then resisting multiple requests for the full data set - while perhaps not a conspiracy - is simple not the way things should be done. Importantly, however, you need to realize how this will be viewed by many within the IPC, namely that their candidate was blocked for no other reason than his membership in the IPC. Given what Colin has accomplished professionally and his work on these very GAC policy development issues within INTA, they will simply roll their eyes if someone suggests he isn't qualified. It's not too late to course correct here. Regards, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:53 AM To: Paul McGrady; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Paul - The notion that I am personally excluding this particular applicant is, frankly, nonsense, and not supported by facts. * The determination that this applicant did not meet the criteria as described in the Call for Volunteers was not my sole determination, but one also expressed by the vice chairs, including the IPC/NCPH vice chair. * I have no idea what Registrars or the RrSG want in a GAC Liaison, as I haven't consulted them. * I was, however, contacted by a CPH-affiliated individual about the position, but asked them to reconsider volunteering, given that the role was previously occupied by a member from the CPH, and that this person came up short against the posted qualifications. * Clearly this candidate's qualifications are impressive and extensive in other groups and venues, but we're seeking a specific skill set, namely subject matter expertise in GNSO Policy Development. I don't believe we should set aside this central requirement and simply choose a liaison by default. But as I noted earlier, it is possible that he might wish amend his expression of interest to include other experiences, and this also supports an extension. Sorry to be so dull, but there's no grand conspiracy here to exclude the NCPH or the IPC. Thanks- J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 9:17 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, 'Susan Kawaguchi' <susank@fb.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, This is very disturbing. I happen to know that Colin O'Brien, an IPC member expressed interest, so the person you are attempting to exclude is - naturally - an IPC member. I do not, and in the strongest terms, agree with your conclusion that Colin is unqualified. The facts reveal quite the opposite. Colin is the Chair of INTA's Subcommittee on GAC issues where he oversees approximately 25 volunteers all focus on policy issues related to the GAC. His policy work has been extremely important to the development of policy through his role at INTA and the IPC. He has a long history of being at ICANN meetings - where you will find him in every GAC session, being a careful student of the process, and going back to lead policy efforts in his role within INTA. I can understand why the folks you represent on Council may be unhappy that they could not locate a volunteer to step forward, but that is not the same thing as Colin - a bright young lawyer with an international practice focusing in the ICANN space - being unqualified (unless being an IPC member is an automatic disqualification, in which case let's just state that openly and discuss whether or not that is appropriate). . So, I say that Colin is not only qualified, but that he is the most qualified of any candidate that came forward. I see no reason to allow one SC to set the agenda here nor do I see any reason to exclude IPC members from this important role. Let's do the right thing and move forward with confirming Colin for this position. Regards, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:59 AM To: Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Susan - You are correct, and I do recall the Council's conversation in Marrakesh, but the group didn't come to a decision either way. Referencing the selection process and criteria contained in the "Call for Candidates"(attached) that was adopted by the Council and distributed by Glen to the SGs and Cs, we note under "skills and experience" that: * Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or review in the GNSO And * A former or recently departed GNSO Councilor is likely to be well-qualified for the position but this is not a necessary criterion for the Liaison. With the first being held up as a requirement, and the second expressed more as a "plus". In our current situation, I can report that we received one submission, and it did not meet ether criteria. This could be because the candidate lacks the requested experience, or because their submitted Expression of Interest was incomplete. We also received a handful (~3) verbal inquiries from other candidates, but those were later withdrawn. In all scenarios, I believe our selection would benefit from extending the call for candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57. If it the consensus of the Council is that we now publish the submission received (including the candidate's name), then I would ask Council to grant me the opportunity to go back to that candidate and obtain their consent, and that publication of the EOI should only proceed if the candidate agrees. Thanks- J. From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn't understand why this had to be secretive at that time. Who would make the selection if we had enough candidates? The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and who was selected on the team. I think we aim for more transparency. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Paul - Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected. I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall. Thanks- J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, I guess until I know who's offer of help we are turning down, I'm not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don't think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request? Regards, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Phil & Paul - We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago. Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil's point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.) Apologies if this sounds like I'm being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall. Hope this helps. Thanks- J. From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update I'm inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term "underwhelming" denote no applications? Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks! Best, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I'd like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO - GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks- J. _____ 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 _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMF-g&c= 5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=hXC3Qj-mLg92Z-SFun5NBlbBvW EeTyBXJec7jH8lma0&s=7sxeiejezt0AVXvDbIEyoJDh0dZhmITjW8AQWxiAfc4&e=> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
One last comment - last time, we got a good number of candidates, and several were exceptionally qualified. Mason was selected narrowly over at least two others I recall who were also very solidly qualified. This time we got a single candidate who fitted the main stated qualifications poorly, whatever their other qualifications. That, if nothing else, is such a disparity it would qualify extending the period for nomination, in my opinion. This position has a specific role to serve the GNSO - if we can't find someone who is well suited, we don't need to fill the position. That said, if council feels like revisiting the procedure, no reason we shouldn't - though I'm happy to leave it up to leadership? David On Thursday, 9 June 2016, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
Thanks Keith. So far only your email, James’ and Donna’s references any conspiracy. My do not. The conspiracy theory is a straw man which appears to be designed to distract from discussing the broken process and I’m not interested in addressing it further. Sorry if not go along to get along is viewed as unconstructive or non-collegial. I have, however, learned an important lesson in how one will be painted if they object to a broken process.
Best,
Paul
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@gnso.icann.org');> [mailto: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@gnso.icann.org');>] *On Behalf Of *Drazek, Keith *Sent:* Wednesday, June 08, 2016 11:20 AM *To:* Paul McGrady; 'James M. Bladel'; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'GNSO Council List' *Subject:* RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Paul,
With all due respect, you clearly suggested that James and the CPH somehow orchestrated the elimination of a IPC candidate because he was an IPC candidate, which is completely false and, frankly, disappointing. You can try to walk that back now by calling it a blunder, but that’s not what you alleged and your unfortunate approach to this has been neither constructive nor collegial. Have you raised this issue directly with Heather, the IPC/NCPH-appointed Co-Chair to get her views on the process?
On substance, experience with GAC Policy Development is very different than GNSO Policy Development. We need our GNSO Liaison to the GAC to be able to explain, educate, and, at times, argue for the importance of the GNSO views, procedures and positions. Without direct experience with our processes, I don’t see how a candidate can perform the function, which is why we established it as a key criteria for selection. If Colin has such experience, or can volunteer for participation in GNSO PDPs or WGs in the coming months, he is in no way disqualified. You seem to be arguing that we should accept a candidate by default because he was the only candidate, when it appears his stated qualifications did not meet our established requirements.
Finally, by my read, it appears that the process we all agreed to in Marrakech has been followed.
Regards,
Keith
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@gnso.icann.org');> [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@gnso.icann.org');>] *On Behalf Of *Paul McGrady *Sent:* Wednesday, June 08, 2016 11:39 AM *To:* 'James M. Bladel'; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'GNSO Council List' *Subject:* RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
James,
Painting me as a conspiracy theorist isn’t helpful.
Let me be very clear, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and I personally think this is just a blunder not a conspiracy. Pre-disqualifying a candidate and then asking the Council to ratify that without the full data set, and then resisting multiple requests for the full data set – while perhaps not a conspiracy – is simple not the way things should be done. Importantly, however, you need to realize how this will be viewed by many within the IPC, namely that their candidate was blocked for no other reason than his membership in the IPC. Given what Colin has accomplished professionally and his work on these very GAC policy development issues within INTA, they will simply roll their eyes if someone suggests he isn’t qualified.
It’s not too late to course correct here.
Regards,
Paul
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@gnso.icann.org');> [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@gnso.icann.org');>] *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel *Sent:* Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:53 AM *To:* Paul McGrady; 'Susan Kawaguchi'; 'GNSO Council List' *Subject:* Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Paul -
The notion that I am personally excluding this particular applicant is, frankly, nonsense, and not supported by facts.
- The determination that this applicant did not meet the criteria as described in the Call for Volunteers was not my sole determination, but one also expressed by the vice chairs, including the IPC/NCPH vice chair. - I have no idea what Registrars or the RrSG want in a GAC Liaison, as I haven't consulted them. - I was, however, contacted by a CPH-affiliated individual about the position, but asked them to reconsider volunteering, given that the role was previously occupied by a member from the CPH, and that this person came up short against the posted qualifications. - Clearly this candidate’s qualifications are impressive and extensive in other groups and venues, but we're seeking a specific skill set, namely subject matter expertise in GNSO Policy Development. I don’t believe we should set aside this central requirement and simply choose a liaison by default. But as I noted earlier, it is possible that he might wish amend his expression of interest to include other experiences, and this also supports an extension.
Sorry to be so dull, but there’s no grand conspiracy here to exclude the NCPH or the IPC.
Thanks—
J.
*From: *Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','policy@paulmcgrady.com');>> *Date: *Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 9:17 *To: *James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jbladel@godaddy.com');>>, 'Susan Kawaguchi' <susank@fb.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','susank@fb.com');>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','council@gnso.icann.org');>> *Subject: *RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi James,
This is very disturbing. I happen to know that Colin O’Brien, an IPC member expressed interest, so the person you are attempting to exclude is – naturally – an IPC member. I do not, and in the strongest terms, agree with your conclusion that Colin is unqualified. The facts reveal quite the opposite. Colin is the Chair of INTA’s Subcommittee on GAC issues where he oversees approximately 25 volunteers all focus on policy issues related to the GAC. His policy work has been extremely important to the development of policy through his role at INTA and the IPC. He has a long history of being at ICANN meetings – where you will find him in every GAC session, being a careful student of the process, and going back to lead policy efforts in his role within INTA. I can understand why the folks you represent on Council may be unhappy that they could not locate a volunteer to step forward, but that is not the same thing as Colin – a bright young lawyer with an international practice focusing in the ICANN space – being unqualified (unless being an IPC member is an automatic disqualification, in which case let’s just state that openly and discuss whether or not that is appropriate). .
So, I say that Colin is not only qualified, but that he is the most qualified of any candidate that came forward. I see no reason to allow one SC to set the agenda here nor do I see any reason to exclude IPC members from this important role. Let’s do the right thing and move forward with confirming Colin for this position.
Regards,
Paul
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@gnso.icann.org');> [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@gnso.icann.org');>] *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel *Sent:* Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:59 AM *To:* Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List *Subject:* Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi Susan -
You are correct, and I do recall the Council's conversation in Marrakesh, but the group didn’t come to a decision either way. Referencing the selection process and criteria contained in the "Call for Candidates"(attached) that was adopted by the Council and distributed by Glen to the SGs and Cs, we note under “skills and experience” that:
** Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or review in the GNSO*
And
** A former or recently departed GNSO Councilor is likely to be well-qualified for the position but this is not a necessary criterion for the Liaison.*
With the first being held up as a requirement, and the second expressed more as a “plus”.
In our current situation, I can report that we received one submission, and it did not meet ether criteria. This could be because the candidate lacks the requested experience, or because their submitted Expression of Interest was incomplete. We also received a handful (~3) verbal inquiries from other candidates, but those were later withdrawn. In all scenarios, I believe our selection would benefit from extending the call for candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57.
If it the consensus of the Council is that we now publish the submission received (including the candidate’s name), then I would ask Council to grant me the opportunity to go back to that candidate and obtain their consent, and that publication of the EOI should only proceed if the candidate agrees.
Thanks—
J.
*From: *Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','susank@fb.com');>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 *To: *James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jbladel@godaddy.com');>>, Paul McGrady < policy@paulmcgrady.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','policy@paulmcgrady.com');>>, Phil Corwin < psc@vlaw-dc.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','psc@vlaw-dc.com');>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','council@gnso.icann.org');>> *Subject: *Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi James,
We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn’t understand why this had to be secretive at that time. Who would make the selection if we had enough candidates?
The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and who was selected on the team.
I think we aim for more transparency.
Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager
Facebook Legal Dept.
*From: *<owner-council@gnso.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@gnso.icann.org');>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jbladel@godaddy.com');>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM *To: *Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','policy@paulmcgrady.com');>>, 'Phil Corwin' < psc@vlaw-dc.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','psc@vlaw-dc.com');>>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','council@gnso.icann.org');>> *Subject: *Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi Paul -
Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected.
I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall.
Thanks—
J.
*From: *Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','policy@paulmcgrady.com');>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 *To: *James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jbladel@godaddy.com');>>, Phil Corwin < psc@vlaw-dc.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','psc@vlaw-dc.com');>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','council@gnso.icann.org');>> *Subject: *RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi James,
I guess until I know who’s offer of help we are turning down, I’m not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don’t think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request?
Regards,
Paul
*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@gnso.icann.org');> [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@gnso.icann.org');>] *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel *Sent:* Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM *To:* Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' *Subject:* Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi Phil & Paul -
We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago.
Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil’s point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.)
Apologies if this sounds like I’m being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall.
Hope this helps.
Thanks—
J.
*From: *Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','psc@vlaw-dc.com');>> *Date: *Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 *To: *Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','policy@paulmcgrady.com');>>, James Bladel < jbladel@godaddy.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jbladel@godaddy.com');>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','council@gnso.icann.org');>> *Subject: *RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
I’m inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term “underwhelming” denote no applications?
Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously.
Best to all, Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/Cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@gnso.icann.org');> [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@gnso.icann.org');>] *On Behalf Of *Paul McGrady *Sent:* Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM *To:* 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' *Subject:* RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi James,
Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks!
Best,
Paul
*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@gnso.icann.org');> [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','owner-council@gnso.icann.org');>] *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel *Sent:* Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM *To:* GNSO Council List *Subject:* [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Dear Council Colleagues -
Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad.
Therefore, with this in mind, I’d like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO – GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors.
Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason.
Thanks—
J.
------------------------------
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* ------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMF-g&c=5...> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Hi Paul, I don’t know Colin, but he sounds like a very accomplished person. If he really was the sole applicant, then I am at least glad that he is interested in the job, as well as in GAC participation in the GNSO’s PDP. Still…, your description of Colin does not (as far as I can tell) include any actual experience with GNSO processes. Considering the nature of the role and duties of the GAC Liaison, wouldn’t you agree that there is a reason why experience in policy development in the GNSO is the main consideration that needs to be taken into account? This includes understanding of the procedural nuances of the process, as well as the substantive policy issues. Then again, maybe he does have experience with the GNSO, and I am just unaware. Like I said, I don’t know Colin personally. Thanks. Amr
On Jun 8, 2016, at 4:17 PM, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
Hi James,
This is very disturbing. I happen to know that Colin O’Brien, an IPC member expressed interest, so the person you are attempting to exclude is – naturally – an IPC member. I do not, and in the strongest terms, agree with your conclusion that Colin is unqualified. The facts reveal quite the opposite. Colin is the Chair of INTA’s Subcommittee on GAC issues where he oversees approximately 25 volunteers all focus on policy issues related to the GAC. His policy work has been extremely important to the development of policy through his role at INTA and the IPC. He has a long history of being at ICANN meetings – where you will find him in every GAC session, being a careful student of the process, and going back to lead policy efforts in his role within INTA. I can understand why the folks you represent on Council may be unhappy that they could not locate a volunteer to step forward, but that is not the same thing as Colin – a bright young lawyer with an international practice focusing in the ICANN space – being unqualified (unless being an IPC member is an automatic disqualification, in which case let’s just state that openly and discuss whether or not that is appropriate). .
So, I say that Colin is not only qualified, but that he is the most qualified of any candidate that came forward. I see no reason to allow one SC to set the agenda here nor do I see any reason to exclude IPC members from this important role. Let’s do the right thing and move forward with confirming Colin for this position.
Regards, Paul
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:59 AM To: Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi Susan -
You are correct, and I do recall the Council's conversation in Marrakesh, but the group didn’t come to a decision either way. Referencing the selection process and criteria contained in the "Call for Candidates"(attached) that was adopted by the Council and distributed by Glen to the SGs and Cs, we note under “skills and experience” that:
* Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or review in the GNSO And * A former or recently departed GNSO Councilor is likely to be well-qualified for the position but this is not a necessary criterion for the Liaison.
With the first being held up as a requirement, and the second expressed more as a “plus”.
In our current situation, I can report that we received one submission, and it did not meet ether criteria. This could be because the candidate lacks the requested experience, or because their submitted Expression of Interest was incomplete. We also received a handful (~3) verbal inquiries from other candidates, but those were later withdrawn. In all scenarios, I believe our selection would benefit from extending the call for candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57.
If it the consensus of the Council is that we now publish the submission received (including the candidate’s name), then I would ask Council to grant me the opportunity to go back to that candidate and obtain their consent, and that publication of the EOI should only proceed if the candidate agrees.
Thanks—
J.
From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com <mailto:susank@fb.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi James,
We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn’t understand why this had to be secretive at that time. Who would make the selection if we had enough candidates?
The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and who was selected on the team.
I think we aim for more transparency. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi Paul -
Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected.
I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall.
Thanks—
J.
From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi James,
I guess until I know who’s offer of help we are turning down, I’m not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don’t think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request?
Regards, Paul
From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi Phil & Paul -
We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago.
Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil’s point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.)
Apologies if this sounds like I’m being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall.
Hope this helps.
Thanks—
J.
From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
I’m inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term “underwhelming” denote no applications?
Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously.
Best to all, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi James,
Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks!
Best, Paul
From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Dear Council Colleagues -
Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad.
Therefore, with this in mind, I’d like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO – GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors.
Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason.
Thanks—
J.
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 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMF-g&c=5...> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Hi Amr, These are great questions and in an open and transparent process where someone is not disqualified in a vacuum, we would have had opportunity to ask Colin that question. You say you don’t know Colin and it appears the top-down process of pre-disqualification will ensure that you won’t meet him in the context of his candidacy. If there were a non-top down, open, transparent process in place, which there doesn’t appear to be, perhaps he would have replied that, of course, he has experience in GAC policy development as that policy effects all of his clients who operate in the space and that is precisely why he was chose by INTA with its 9000 members to be in the GAC policy related leadership role he is in presently. However, from James’ last post, it appears that there will be no opportunity for the GNSO Council to hear from Colin and no real consideration given to his well-qualified candidacy. Regards, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:57 AM To: Paul McGrady Cc: James M. Bladel; Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Paul, I don’t know Colin, but he sounds like a very accomplished person. If he really was the sole applicant, then I am at least glad that he is interested in the job, as well as in GAC participation in the GNSO’s PDP. Still…, your description of Colin does not (as far as I can tell) include any actual experience with GNSO processes. Considering the nature of the role and duties of the GAC Liaison, wouldn’t you agree that there is a reason why experience in policy development in the GNSO is the main consideration that needs to be taken into account? This includes understanding of the procedural nuances of the process, as well as the substantive policy issues. Then again, maybe he does have experience with the GNSO, and I am just unaware. Like I said, I don’t know Colin personally. Thanks. Amr On Jun 8, 2016, at 4:17 PM, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote: Hi James, This is very disturbing. I happen to know that Colin O’Brien, an IPC member expressed interest, so the person you are attempting to exclude is – naturally – an IPC member. I do not, and in the strongest terms, agree with your conclusion that Colin is unqualified. The facts reveal quite the opposite. Colin is the Chair of INTA’s Subcommittee on GAC issues where he oversees approximately 25 volunteers all focus on policy issues related to the GAC. His policy work has been extremely important to the development of policy through his role at INTA and the IPC. He has a long history of being at ICANN meetings – where you will find him in every GAC session, being a careful student of the process, and going back to lead policy efforts in his role within INTA. I can understand why the folks you represent on Council may be unhappy that they could not locate a volunteer to step forward, but that is not the same thing as Colin – a bright young lawyer with an international practice focusing in the ICANN space – being unqualified (unless being an IPC member is an automatic disqualification, in which case let’s just state that openly and discuss whether or not that is appropriate). . So, I say that Colin is not only qualified, but that he is the most qualified of any candidate that came forward. I see no reason to allow one SC to set the agenda here nor do I see any reason to exclude IPC members from this important role. Let’s do the right thing and move forward with confirming Colin for this position. Regards, Paul From: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> owner-council@gnso.icann.org [ <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:59 AM To: Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Susan - You are correct, and I do recall the Council's conversation in Marrakesh, but the group didn’t come to a decision either way. Referencing the selection process and criteria contained in the "Call for Candidates"(attached) that was adopted by the Council and distributed by Glen to the SGs and Cs, we note under “skills and experience” that: * Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or review in the GNSO And * A former or recently departed GNSO Councilor is likely to be well-qualified for the position but this is not a necessary criterion for the Liaison. With the first being held up as a requirement, and the second expressed more as a “plus”. In our current situation, I can report that we received one submission, and it did not meet ether criteria. This could be because the candidate lacks the requested experience, or because their submitted Expression of Interest was incomplete. We also received a handful (~3) verbal inquiries from other candidates, but those were later withdrawn. In all scenarios, I believe our selection would benefit from extending the call for candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57. If it the consensus of the Council is that we now publish the submission received (including the candidate’s name), then I would ask Council to grant me the opportunity to go back to that candidate and obtain their consent, and that publication of the EOI should only proceed if the candidate agrees. Thanks— J. From: Susan Kawaguchi < <mailto:susank@fb.com> susank@fb.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 To: James Bladel < <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> jbladel@godaddy.com>, Paul McGrady < <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> policy@paulmcgrady.com>, Phil Corwin < <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List < <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn’t understand why this had to be secretive at that time. Who would make the selection if we had enough candidates? The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and who was selected on the team. I think we aim for more transparency. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. From: < <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" < <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM To: Paul McGrady < <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> policy@paulmcgrady.com>, 'Phil Corwin' < <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> psc@vlaw-dc.com>, 'GNSO Council List' < <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Paul - Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected. I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall. Thanks— J. From: Paul McGrady < <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> policy@paulmcgrady.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 To: James Bladel < <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> jbladel@godaddy.com>, Phil Corwin < <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List < <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, I guess until I know who’s offer of help we are turning down, I’m not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don’t think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request? Regards, Paul From: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> owner-council@gnso.icann.org [ <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Phil & Paul - We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago. Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil’s point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.) Apologies if this sounds like I’m being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall. Hope this helps. Thanks— J. From: Phil Corwin < <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 To: Paul McGrady < <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> policy@paulmcgrady.com>, James Bladel < <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List < <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update I’m inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term “underwhelming” denote no applications? Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> owner-council@gnso.icann.org [ <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks! Best, Paul From: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> owner-council@gnso.icann.org [ <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I’d like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO – GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks— J. _____ 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 _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMF-g&c=5...> www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
I don't know if the leadership team were planning on using a process similar to the one we used to select Mason, but assuming they were doing so: - we treated candidates as applying as individuals, not as representatives of SG/Cs, and we assumed that they would therefore be confidential from the start. I agree with James that if confidentiality was the expectation, then it should be retained. - we set out criteria in creating the position before we evaluated the candidates, and our selection process was directly related to how well they matched those criteria to rank candidates. - experience in the GNSO PDP process and GNSO procedure were vital in our selection last year - I do not believe SG/C affiliation played any explicit role in the way we selected candidates last year, and I would assume similarly this year. I think I would have taken a similar position in the same situation. I support the leadership decision. David On Wednesday, 8 June 2016, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
Hi Amr,
These are great questions and in an open and transparent process where someone is not disqualified in a vacuum, we would have had opportunity to ask Colin that question. You say you don’t know Colin and it appears the top-down process of pre-disqualification will ensure that you won’t meet him in the context of his candidacy. If there were a non-top down, open, transparent process in place, which there doesn’t appear to be, perhaps he would have replied that, of course, he has experience in GAC policy development as that policy effects all of his clients who operate in the space and that is precisely why he was chose by INTA with its 9000 members to be in the GAC policy related leadership role he is in presently. However, from James’ last post, it appears that there will be no opportunity for the GNSO Council to hear from Colin and no real consideration given to his well-qualified candidacy.
Regards,
Paul
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Amr Elsadr *Sent:* Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:57 AM *To:* Paul McGrady *Cc:* James M. Bladel; Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List *Subject:* Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi Paul,
I don’t know Colin, but he sounds like a very accomplished person. If he really was the sole applicant, then I am at least glad that he is interested in the job, as well as in GAC participation in the GNSO’s PDP.
Still…, your description of Colin does not (as far as I can tell) include any actual experience with GNSO processes. Considering the nature of the role and duties of the GAC Liaison, wouldn’t you agree that there is a reason why experience in policy development in the GNSO is the main consideration that needs to be taken into account? This includes understanding of the procedural nuances of the process, as well as the substantive policy issues.
Then again, maybe he does have experience with the GNSO, and I am just unaware. Like I said, I don’t know Colin personally.
Thanks.
Amr
On Jun 8, 2016, at 4:17 PM, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
Hi James,
This is very disturbing. I happen to know that Colin O’Brien, an IPC member expressed interest, so the person you are attempting to exclude is – naturally – an IPC member. I do not, and in the strongest terms, agree with your conclusion that Colin is unqualified. The facts reveal quite the opposite. Colin is the Chair of INTA’s Subcommittee on GAC issues where he oversees approximately 25 volunteers all focus on policy issues related to the GAC. His policy work has been extremely important to the development of policy through his role at INTA and the IPC. He has a long history of being at ICANN meetings – where you will find him in every GAC session, being a careful student of the process, and going back to lead policy efforts in his role within INTA. I can understand why the folks you represent on Council may be unhappy that they could not locate a volunteer to step forward, but that is not the same thing as Colin – a bright young lawyer with an international practice focusing in the ICANN space – being unqualified (unless being an IPC member is an automatic disqualification, in which case let’s just state that openly and discuss whether or not that is appropriate). .
So, I say that Colin is not only qualified, but that he is the most qualified of any candidate that came forward. I see no reason to allow one SC to set the agenda here nor do I see any reason to exclude IPC members from this important role. Let’s do the right thing and move forward with confirming Colin for this position.
Regards,
Paul
*From:* owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel *Sent:* Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:59 AM *To:* Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List *Subject:* Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi Susan -
You are correct, and I do recall the Council's conversation in Marrakesh, but the group didn’t come to a decision either way. Referencing the selection process and criteria contained in the "Call for Candidates"(attached) that was adopted by the Council and distributed by Glen to the SGs and Cs, we note under “skills and experience” that:
** Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or review in the GNSO*
And
** A former or recently departed GNSO Councilor is likely to be well-qualified for the position but this is not a necessary criterion for the Liaison.*
With the first being held up as a requirement, and the second expressed more as a “plus”.
In our current situation, I can report that we received one submission, and it did not meet ether criteria. This could be because the candidate lacks the requested experience, or because their submitted Expression of Interest was incomplete. We also received a handful (~3) verbal inquiries from other candidates, but those were later withdrawn. In all scenarios, I believe our selection would benefit from extending the call for candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57.
If it the consensus of the Council is that we now publish the submission received (including the candidate’s name), then I would ask Council to grant me the opportunity to go back to that candidate and obtain their consent, and that publication of the EOI should only proceed if the candidate agrees.
Thanks—
J.
*From: *Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com> *Date: *Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 *To: *James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Paul McGrady < policy@paulmcgrady.com>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi James,
We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn’t understand why this had to be secretive at that time. Who would make the selection if we had enough candidates?
The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and who was selected on the team.
I think we aim for more transparency.
Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager
Facebook Legal Dept.
*From: *<owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" < jbladel@godaddy.com> *Date: *Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM *To: *Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, 'Phil Corwin' < psc@vlaw-dc.com>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi Paul -
Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected.
I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall.
Thanks—
J.
*From: *Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> *Date: *Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 *To: *James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi James,
I guess until I know who’s offer of help we are turning down, I’m not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don’t think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request?
Regards,
Paul
*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel *Sent:* Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM *To:* Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' *Subject:* Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi Phil & Paul -
We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago.
Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil’s point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.)
Apologies if this sounds like I’m being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall.
Hope this helps.
Thanks—
J.
*From: *Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> *Date: *Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 *To: *Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, James Bladel < jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
I’m inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term “underwhelming” denote no applications?
Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously.
Best to all, Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/Cell*
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul McGrady *Sent:* Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM *To:* 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' *Subject:* RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi James,
Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks!
Best,
Paul
*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel *Sent:* Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM *To:* GNSO Council List *Subject:* [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Dear Council Colleagues -
Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad.
Therefore, with this in mind, I’d like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO – GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors.
Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason.
Thanks—
J.
------------------------------
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* ------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMF-g&c=5...> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Frankly, I am disappointed in this attempt to both shoehorn a particular candidate into position ("Let’s do the right thing and move forward with confirming Colin for this position") and at the same time cast James in a partisan light ("why the folks you represent on Council may be unhappy"), when it was the entire leadership team that made this decision. Let's leave such antics to the Trump team. If Colin is indeed qualified for the position, maybe he should have made a better case in his application instead of providing a minimalistic EOI and he can always re-submit his application during the extention and make a better case. While the process could have been more transparent, I have full confidence that this couse of action will allow for a better result, which may be Colin after all. Just because there is only one candidate for a given position does not mean that he has to be chosen. I believe such a course of action was also adopted by the CSG when it came to the election process for the GNSO council leadership a few months back. If the candidate does not appear qualified, extending the search for candidates is a good result, especially when the previous holder of the position is willing to stay on until his replacement is found. I had hoped we as a council would be able to move beyond partisan politics and focus on doing our job as best we can to the benefit of the entire community. Best, Volker Am 08.06.2016 um 17:33 schrieb Paul McGrady:
Hi Amr,
These are great questions and in an open and transparent process where someone is not disqualified in a vacuum, we would have had opportunity to ask Colin that question. You say you don’t know Colin and it appears the top-down process of pre-disqualification will ensure that you won’t meet him in the context of his candidacy. If there were a non-top down, open, transparent process in place, which there doesn’t appear to be, perhaps he would have replied that, of course, he has experience in GAC policy development as that policy effects all of his clients who operate in the space and that is precisely why he was chose by INTA with its 9000 members to be in the GAC policy related leadership role he is in presently. However, from James’ last post, it appears that there will be no opportunity for the GNSO Council to hear from Colin and no real consideration given to his well-qualified candidacy.
Regards,
Paul
*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Amr Elsadr *Sent:* Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:57 AM *To:* Paul McGrady *Cc:* James M. Bladel; Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List *Subject:* Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi Paul,
I don’t know Colin, but he sounds like a very accomplished person. If he really was the sole applicant, then I am at least glad that he is interested in the job, as well as in GAC participation in the GNSO’s PDP.
Still…, your description of Colin does not (as far as I can tell) include any actual experience with GNSO processes. Considering the nature of the role and duties of the GAC Liaison, wouldn’t you agree that there is a reason why experience in policy development in the GNSO is the main consideration that needs to be taken into account? This includes understanding of the procedural nuances of the process, as well as the substantive policy issues.
Then again, maybe he does have experience with the GNSO, and I am just unaware. Like I said, I don’t know Colin personally.
Thanks.
Amr
On Jun 8, 2016, at 4:17 PM, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> wrote:
Hi James,
This is very disturbing. I happen to know that Colin O’Brien, an IPC member expressed interest, so the person you are attempting to exclude is – naturally – an IPC member. I do not, and in the strongest terms, agree with your conclusion that Colin is unqualified. The facts reveal quite the opposite. Colin is the Chair of INTA’s Subcommittee on GAC issues where he oversees approximately 25 volunteers all focus on policy issues related to the GAC. His policy work has been extremely important to the development of policy through his role at INTA and the IPC. He has a long history of being at ICANN meetings – where you will find him in every GAC session, being a careful student of the process, and going back to lead policy efforts in his role within INTA. I can understand why the folks you represent on Council may be unhappy that they could not locate a volunteer to step forward, but that is not the same thing as Colin – a bright young lawyer with an international practice focusing in the ICANN space – being unqualified (unless being an IPC member is an automatic disqualification, in which case let’s just state that openly and discuss whether or not that is appropriate). .
So, I say that Colin is not only qualified, but that he is the most qualified of any candidate that came forward. I see no reason to allow one SC to set the agenda here nor do I see any reason to exclude IPC members from this important role. Let’s do the right thing and move forward with confirming Colin for this position.
Regards,
Paul
*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]*On Behalf Of*James M. Bladel *Sent:*Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:59 AM *To:*Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List *Subject:*Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi Susan -
You are correct, and I do recall the Council's conversation in Marrakesh, but the group didn’t come to a decision either way. Referencing the selection process and criteria contained in the "Call for Candidates"(attached) that was adopted by the Council and distributed by Glen to the SGs and Cs, we note under “skills and experience” that:
/* Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or review in the GNSO///
And
/* A former or recently departed GNSO Councilor is likely to be well-qualified for the position but this is not a necessary criterion for the Liaison./
With the first being held up as a requirement, and the second expressed more as a “plus”.
In our current situation, I can report that we received one submission, and it did not meet ether criteria. This could be because the candidate lacks the requested experience, or because their submitted Expression of Interest was incomplete. We also received a handful (~3) verbal inquiries from other candidates, but those were later withdrawn. In all scenarios, I believe our selection would benefit from extending the call for candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57.
If it the consensus of the Council is that we now publish the submission received (including the candidate’s name), then I would ask Council to grant me the opportunity to go back to that candidate and obtain their consent, and that publication of the EOI should only proceed if the candidate agrees.
Thanks—
J.
*From:*Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com <mailto:susank@fb.com>> *Date:*Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 *To:*James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> *Subject:*Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi James,
We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn’t understand why this had to be secretive at that time. Who would make the selection if we had enough candidates?
The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and who was selected on the team.
I think we aim for more transparency.
Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager
Facebook Legal Dept.
*From:*<owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> *Date:*Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM *To:*Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> *Subject:*Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi Paul -
Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected.
I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall.
Thanks—
J.
*From:*Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> *Date:*Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 *To:*James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> *Subject:*RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi James,
I guess until I know who’s offer of help we are turning down, I’m not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don’t think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request?
Regards,
Paul
*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]*On Behalf Of*James M. Bladel *Sent:*Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM *To:*Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' *Subject:*Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi Phil & Paul -
We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago.
Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil’s point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.)
Apologies if this sounds like I’m being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall.
Hope this helps.
Thanks—
J.
*From:*Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> *Date:*Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 *To:*Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> *Subject:*RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
I’m inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term “underwhelming” denote no applications?
Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously.
Best to all, Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/Cell*
**
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]*On Behalf Of*Paul McGrady *Sent:*Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM *To:*'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' *Subject:*RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi James,
Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks!
Best,
Paul
*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]*On Behalf Of*James M. Bladel *Sent:*Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM *To:*GNSO Council List *Subject:*[council] GAC Liaison - Update
Dear Council Colleagues -
Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad.
Therefore, with this in mind, I’d like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO – GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors.
Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason.
Thanks—
J.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG -www.avg.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMF-g&c=5...> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
-- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems www.twitter.com/key_systems CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Folks - Perhaps we could all step back just a bit and reset the conversation on this topic. A reminder that the proposal on the table calls for an extension through ICANN57. More time could lead to additional candidates, and could also be an opportunity for our current candidate to amend/augment his submission. Donna, Heather and I are working with Staff to follow the process that was adopted by the Council, and tracks closely to the selection process used last time around. But we are not bound by tradition, and if the Council wants to amend the process, then an extension also benefits us, in granting an opportunity to make changes (re: expectations of confidentiality, qualifications sought, etc.). Thanks— J. From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net>> Date: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 11:48 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr@egyptig.org<mailto:aelsadr@egyptig.org>> Cc: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, 'Susan Kawaguchi' <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Frankly, I am disappointed in this attempt to both shoehorn a particular candidate into position ("Let’s do the right thing and move forward with confirming Colin for this position") and at the same time cast James in a partisan light ("why the folks you represent on Council may be unhappy"), when it was the entire leadership team that made this decision. Let's leave such antics to the Trump team. If Colin is indeed qualified for the position, maybe he should have made a better case in his application instead of providing a minimalistic EOI and he can always re-submit his application during the extention and make a better case. While the process could have been more transparent, I have full confidence that this couse of action will allow for a better result, which may be Colin after all. Just because there is only one candidate for a given position does not mean that he has to be chosen. I believe such a course of action was also adopted by the CSG when it came to the election process for the GNSO council leadership a few months back. If the candidate does not appear qualified, extending the search for candidates is a good result, especially when the previous holder of the position is willing to stay on until his replacement is found. I had hoped we as a council would be able to move beyond partisan politics and focus on doing our job as best we can to the benefit of the entire community. Best, Volker Am 08.06.2016 um 17:33 schrieb Paul McGrady: Hi Amr, These are great questions and in an open and transparent process where someone is not disqualified in a vacuum, we would have had opportunity to ask Colin that question. You say you don’t know Colin and it appears the top-down process of pre-disqualification will ensure that you won’t meet him in the context of his candidacy. If there were a non-top down, open, transparent process in place, which there doesn’t appear to be, perhaps he would have replied that, of course, he has experience in GAC policy development as that policy effects all of his clients who operate in the space and that is precisely why he was chose by INTA with its 9000 members to be in the GAC policy related leadership role he is in presently. However, from James’ last post, it appears that there will be no opportunity for the GNSO Council to hear from Colin and no real consideration given to his well-qualified candidacy. Regards, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:57 AM To: Paul McGrady Cc: James M. Bladel; Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Paul, I don’t know Colin, but he sounds like a very accomplished person. If he really was the sole applicant, then I am at least glad that he is interested in the job, as well as in GAC participation in the GNSO’s PDP. Still…, your description of Colin does not (as far as I can tell) include any actual experience with GNSO processes. Considering the nature of the role and duties of the GAC Liaison, wouldn’t you agree that there is a reason why experience in policy development in the GNSO is the main consideration that needs to be taken into account? This includes understanding of the procedural nuances of the process, as well as the substantive policy issues. Then again, maybe he does have experience with the GNSO, and I am just unaware. Like I said, I don’t know Colin personally. Thanks. Amr On Jun 8, 2016, at 4:17 PM, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> wrote: Hi James, This is very disturbing. I happen to know that Colin O’Brien, an IPC member expressed interest, so the person you are attempting to exclude is – naturally – an IPC member. I do not, and in the strongest terms, agree with your conclusion that Colin is unqualified. The facts reveal quite the opposite. Colin is the Chair of INTA’s Subcommittee on GAC issues where he oversees approximately 25 volunteers all focus on policy issues related to the GAC. His policy work has been extremely important to the development of policy through his role at INTA and the IPC. He has a long history of being at ICANN meetings – where you will find him in every GAC session, being a careful student of the process, and going back to lead policy efforts in his role within INTA. I can understand why the folks you represent on Council may be unhappy that they could not locate a volunteer to step forward, but that is not the same thing as Colin – a bright young lawyer with an international practice focusing in the ICANN space – being unqualified (unless being an IPC member is an automatic disqualification, in which case let’s just state that openly and discuss whether or not that is appropriate). . So, I say that Colin is not only qualified, but that he is the most qualified of any candidate that came forward. I see no reason to allow one SC to set the agenda here nor do I see any reason to exclude IPC members from this important role. Let’s do the right thing and move forward with confirming Colin for this position. Regards, Paul From: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:59 AM To: Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Susan - You are correct, and I do recall the Council's conversation in Marrakesh, but the group didn’t come to a decision either way. Referencing the selection process and criteria contained in the "Call for Candidates"(attached) that was adopted by the Council and distributed by Glen to the SGs and Cs, we note under “skills and experience” that: * Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or review in the GNSO And * A former or recently departed GNSO Councilor is likely to be well-qualified for the position but this is not a necessary criterion for the Liaison. With the first being held up as a requirement, and the second expressed more as a “plus”. In our current situation, I can report that we received one submission, and it did not meet ether criteria. This could be because the candidate lacks the requested experience, or because their submitted Expression of Interest was incomplete. We also received a handful (~3) verbal inquiries from other candidates, but those were later withdrawn. In all scenarios, I believe our selection would benefit from extending the call for candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57. If it the consensus of the Council is that we now publish the submission received (including the candidate’s name), then I would ask Council to grant me the opportunity to go back to that candidate and obtain their consent, and that publication of the EOI should only proceed if the candidate agrees. Thanks— J. From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn’t understand why this had to be secretive at that time. Who would make the selection if we had enough candidates? The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and who was selected on the team. I think we aim for more transparency. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. From: <<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, 'GNSO Council List' <<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Paul - Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected. I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall. Thanks— J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, I guess until I know who’s offer of help we are turning down, I’m not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don’t think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request? Regards, Paul From:<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Phil & Paul - We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago. Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil’s point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.) Apologies if this sounds like I’m being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall. Hope this helps. Thanks— J. From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, James Bladel <<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update I’m inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term “underwhelming” denote no applications? Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From:<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks! Best, Paul From:<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I’d like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO – GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks— J. ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMF-g&c=5...> www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. -- Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Volker A. Greimann - Rechtsabteilung - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. -------------------------------------------- Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann - legal department - Key-Systems GmbH Im Oberen Werk 1 66386 St. Ingbert Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 Email: vgreimann@key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann@key-systems.net> Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems> CEO: Alexander Siffrin Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
Hi, Thank you, James, for this additional information. Speaking for myself, I do not believe I need to know who the applicant was (or even applicants in another hypothetical situation where there have been more than one). I understand the concerns raised for transparency in the selection process, but also appreciate the concerns with publishing the names of applicants. I would not want the need to publish the names publicly deter GNSO community members from applying when a call of volunteers is made. Apparently, the position is already proving to be somewhat difficult to fill. No need to make it more so. However, as James suggested, if applicants whose applications are turned down consent to their names and applications being published, then I would then certainly not object. This should be up to the applicant. Still…, with such a basic requirement needing to be fulfilled, along with the “plus” qualification, I am confident that the Council leadership team can make a good decision on this on the Council’s behalf. And with the information already shared, I don’t feel the need to learn more to support James suggestion of postponing the selection of the GAC liaison. Thanks. Amr
On Jun 8, 2016, at 1:59 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Hi Susan -
You are correct, and I do recall the Council's conversation in Marrakesh, but the group didn’t come to a decision either way. Referencing the selection process and criteria contained in the "Call for Candidates"(attached) that was adopted by the Council and distributed by Glen to the SGs and Cs, we note under “skills and experience” that:
* Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or review in the GNSO And * A former or recently departed GNSO Councilor is likely to be well-qualified for the position but this is not a necessary criterion for the Liaison.
With the first being held up as a requirement, and the second expressed more as a “plus”.
In our current situation, I can report that we received one submission, and it did not meet ether criteria. This could be because the candidate lacks the requested experience, or because their submitted Expression of Interest was incomplete. We also received a handful (~3) verbal inquiries from other candidates, but those were later withdrawn. In all scenarios, I believe our selection would benefit from extending the call for candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57.
If it the consensus of the Council is that we now publish the submission received (including the candidate’s name), then I would ask Council to grant me the opportunity to go back to that candidate and obtain their consent, and that publication of the EOI should only proceed if the candidate agrees.
Thanks—
J.
From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com <mailto:susank@fb.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi James,
We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn’t understand why this had to be secretive at that time. Who would make the selection if we had enough candidates?
The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and who was selected on the team.
I think we aim for more transparency. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.
From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi Paul -
Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected.
I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall.
Thanks—
J.
From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi James,
I guess until I know who’s offer of help we are turning down, I’m not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don’t think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request?
Regards, Paul
From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi Phil & Paul -
We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago.
Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil’s point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.)
Apologies if this sounds like I’m being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall.
Hope this helps.
Thanks—
J.
From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
I’m inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term “underwhelming” denote no applications?
Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously.
Best to all, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi James,
Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks!
Best, Paul
From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Dear Council Colleagues -
Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad.
Therefore, with this in mind, I’d like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO – GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors.
Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason.
Thanks—
J.
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 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMF-g&c=5...> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. <GNSO Liaison to the GAC - call for candidates - FINAL 30 March 2016v1[1][1].doc>
All, I am simply amazed by this. Not only are we suggesting that we pretend there was some confidentiality around the EOI process, which there wasn't, which gives cover for the vacuum in which we have been asked to support James' proposal (the vacuum now being dealt with by the disclosure of the applicant that James has pre-disqualified even though that applicant is more than qualified, it appears that there is actually stomach for the notion that such pre-disqualification is not only proper but within the remit of the GNSO Council "leadership." A few (rhetorical) follow on questions then: 1. Assuming the inappropriate railroading of the IPC candidate continues, in any future round of EOIs, will the secret review and disqualification rest only with James or can we all secretly review and disqualify candidates? 2. Will the secret review and disqualification apply for all positions for which the GNSO Council calls for volunteers or just the GAC Liaison role? If not all, which roles will have a secret review and disqualification period? 3. Any ideas on how the heck I explain this targeted exclusion to the IPC? As you can imagine, I am way over my skis with them by vouching prior to the vote for Chair of the Council that the IPC would be treated neutrally. This is a PR disaster. Folks, it's not too late to course correct here and confirm the GNSO community's volunteer. Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:33 AM To: James M. Bladel Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi, Thank you, James, for this additional information. Speaking for myself, I do not believe I need to know who the applicant was (or even applicants in another hypothetical situation where there have been more than one). I understand the concerns raised for transparency in the selection process, but also appreciate the concerns with publishing the names of applicants. I would not want the need to publish the names publicly deter GNSO community members from applying when a call of volunteers is made. Apparently, the position is already proving to be somewhat difficult to fill. No need to make it more so. However, as James suggested, if applicants whose applications are turned down consent to their names and applications being published, then I would then certainly not object. This should be up to the applicant. Still., with such a basic requirement needing to be fulfilled, along with the "plus" qualification, I am confident that the Council leadership team can make a good decision on this on the Council's behalf. And with the information already shared, I don't feel the need to learn more to support James suggestion of postponing the selection of the GAC liaison. Thanks. Amr On Jun 8, 2016, at 1:59 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote: Hi Susan - You are correct, and I do recall the Council's conversation in Marrakesh, but the group didn't come to a decision either way. Referencing the selection process and criteria contained in the "Call for Candidates"(attached) that was adopted by the Council and distributed by Glen to the SGs and Cs, we note under "skills and experience" that: * Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or review in the GNSO And * A former or recently departed GNSO Councilor is likely to be well-qualified for the position but this is not a necessary criterion for the Liaison. With the first being held up as a requirement, and the second expressed more as a "plus". In our current situation, I can report that we received one submission, and it did not meet ether criteria. This could be because the candidate lacks the requested experience, or because their submitted Expression of Interest was incomplete. We also received a handful (~3) verbal inquiries from other candidates, but those were later withdrawn. In all scenarios, I believe our selection would benefit from extending the call for candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57. If it the consensus of the Council is that we now publish the submission received (including the candidate's name), then I would ask Council to grant me the opportunity to go back to that candidate and obtain their consent, and that publication of the EOI should only proceed if the candidate agrees. Thanks- J. From: Susan Kawaguchi < <mailto:susank@fb.com> susank@fb.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 To: James Bladel < <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> jbladel@godaddy.com>, Paul McGrady < <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> policy@paulmcgrady.com>, Phil Corwin < <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List < <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn't understand why this had to be secretive at that time. Who would make the selection if we had enough candidates? The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and who was selected on the team. I think we aim for more transparency. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. From: < <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" < <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM To: Paul McGrady < <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> policy@paulmcgrady.com>, 'Phil Corwin' < <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> psc@vlaw-dc.com>, 'GNSO Council List' < <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Paul - Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected. I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall. Thanks- J. From: Paul McGrady < <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> policy@paulmcgrady.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 To: James Bladel < <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> jbladel@godaddy.com>, Phil Corwin < <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List < <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, I guess until I know who's offer of help we are turning down, I'm not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don't think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request? Regards, Paul From: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> owner-council@gnso.icann.org [ <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Phil & Paul - We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago. Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil's point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.) Apologies if this sounds like I'm being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall. Hope this helps. Thanks- J. From: Phil Corwin < <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 To: Paul McGrady < <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> policy@paulmcgrady.com>, James Bladel < <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List < <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update I'm inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term "underwhelming" denote no applications? Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> owner-council@gnso.icann.org [ <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks! Best, Paul From: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> owner-council@gnso.icann.org [ <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I'd like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO - GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks- J. _____ 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 _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMF-g&c= 5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=hXC3Qj-mLg92Z-SFun5NBlbBvW EeTyBXJec7jH8lma0&s=7sxeiejezt0AVXvDbIEyoJDh0dZhmITjW8AQWxiAfc4&e=> www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. <GNSO Liaison to the GAC - call for candidates - FINAL 30 March 2016v1[1][1].doc>
Hi, First, I just want to thank Mason for agreeing to continue to serve as liaison. His dedication is much appreciated. I would have great difficulty supporting anyone who does not have extensive GNSO policy development experience for this role. This is a relatively sensitive position and a well meaning individual without the requisite skill set could do more harm than good. At this delicate stage in the transition that's a chance we just can't take. I should note that I personally considered applying for this position but felt I did not yet have the longevity or necessary experience to perform adequately in the role. This should be a very high level appointment. I am perturbed at the apparent allegations of any impropriety in the process. I wasn't happy with the CCT selection process, feel the noncommercial community did not receive adequate consideration for our candidates, felt the rules changed a bit somewhat as the process went forward, but at no time did I ever feel the need to make any allegations about intentional impropriety. This despite the fact the NCSG, NCUC and NPOC (three groups I have some role in representing on Council), unlike the IPC, has nobody currently represented on the leadership team. The perfect is sometimes difficult to achieve but the lack thereof does not mean the existence of intentional culpability on the part of anyone. I agree with the decision of the Council leadership team in this instance. If Mason is willing to continue in the role, I'd suggest we defer this appointment for the new Council to make when it takes office in the fall. Henceforth it might be a good idea to formalise appointments of this sort so they correspond with Council terms and the AGM. Best, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Paul McGrady" <policy@paulmcgrady.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 4:04 PM To: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Cc: "Susan Kawaguchi" <susank@fb.com>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update All, I am simply amazed by this. Not only are we suggesting that we pretend there was some confidentiality around the EOI process, which there wasn't, which gives cover for the vacuum in which we have been asked to support James' proposal (the vacuum now being dealt with by the disclosure of the applicant that James has pre-disqualified even though that applicant is more than qualified, it appears that there is actually stomach for the notion that such pre-disqualification is not only proper but within the remit of the GNSO Council "leadership." A few (rhetorical) follow on questions then: 1. Assuming the inappropriate railroading of the IPC candidate continues, in any future round of EOIs, will the secret review and disqualification rest only with James or can we all secretly review and disqualify candidates? 2. Will the secret review and disqualification apply for all positions for which the GNSO Council calls for volunteers or just the GAC Liaison role? If not all, which roles will have a secret review and disqualification period? 3. Any ideas on how the heck I explain this targeted exclusion to the IPC? As you can imagine, I am way over my skis with them by vouching prior to the vote for Chair of the Council that the IPC would be treated neutrally. This is a PR disaster. Folks, it's not too late to course correct here and confirm the GNSO community's volunteer. Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:33 AM To: James M. Bladel Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi, Thank you, James, for this additional information. Speaking for myself, I do not believe I need to know who the applicant was (or even applicants in another hypothetical situation where there have been more than one). I understand the concerns raised for transparency in the selection process, but also appreciate the concerns with publishing the names of applicants. I would not want the need to publish the names publicly deter GNSO community members from applying when a call of volunteers is made. Apparently, the position is already proving to be somewhat difficult to fill. No need to make it more so. However, as James suggested, if applicants whose applications are turned down consent to their names and applications being published, then I would then certainly not object. This should be up to the applicant. Still., with such a basic requirement needing to be fulfilled, along with the "plus" qualification, I am confident that the Council leadership team can make a good decision on this on the Council's behalf. And with the information already shared, I don't feel the need to learn more to support James suggestion of postponing the selection of the GAC liaison. Thanks. Amr On Jun 8, 2016, at 1:59 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote: Hi Susan - You are correct, and I do recall the Council's conversation in Marrakesh, but the group didn't come to a decision either way. Referencing the selection process and criteria contained in the "Call for Candidates"(attached) that was adopted by the Council and distributed by Glen to the SGs and Cs, we note under "skills and experience" that: * Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or review in the GNSO And * A former or recently departed GNSO Councilor is likely to be well-qualified for the position but this is not a necessary criterion for the Liaison. With the first being held up as a requirement, and the second expressed more as a "plus". In our current situation, I can report that we received one submission, and it did not meet ether criteria. This could be because the candidate lacks the requested experience, or because their submitted Expression of Interest was incomplete. We also received a handful (~3) verbal inquiries from other candidates, but those were later withdrawn. In all scenarios, I believe our selection would benefit from extending the call for candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57. If it the consensus of the Council is that we now publish the submission received (including the candidate's name), then I would ask Council to grant me the opportunity to go back to that candidate and obtain their consent, and that publication of the EOI should only proceed if the candidate agrees. Thanks- J. From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn't understand why this had to be secretive at that time. Who would make the selection if we had enough candidates? The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and who was selected on the team. I think we aim for more transparency. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Paul - Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected. I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall. Thanks- J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, I guess until I know who's offer of help we are turning down, I'm not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don't think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request? Regards, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Phil & Paul - We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago. Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil's point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.) Apologies if this sounds like I'm being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall. Hope this helps. Thanks- J. From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update I'm inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term "underwhelming" denote no applications? Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks! Best, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I'd like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO - GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks- J. ---------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. <GNSO Liaison to the GAC - call for candidates - FINAL 30 March 2016v1[1][1].doc>
1. I agree with Ed here. Council experience is a must, in my view. I would say government experience is also highly desirable, but too few ICANNers appear to have it. 2. I think one applicant is an insufficient number. Timing was bad for the process, it will be better in the fall. 3. Since Mason has very kindly agreed to continue, what is wrong with Paul's candidate re-applying in the fall? In terms of transparency and privacy issues, since we do not have a transparent process for candidate selection on other nominated groups (eg. the referenced CCT committee selection process) I think it a bit unfair to critique James' role in this. One candidate is too few, that seems very logical to me. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin On 2016-06-08 11:31, Edward Morris wrote:
Hi, First, I just want to thank Mason for agreeing to continue to serve as liaison. His dedication is much appreciated. I would have great difficulty supporting anyone who does not have extensive GNSO policy development experience for this role. This is a relatively sensitive position and a well meaning individual without the requisite skill set could do more harm than good. At this delicate stage in the transition that's a chance we just can't take. I should note that I personally considered applying for this position but felt I did not yet have the longevity or necessary experience to perform adequately in the role. This should be a very high level appointment. I am perturbed at the apparent allegations of any impropriety in the process. I wasn't happy with the CCT selection process, feel the noncommercial community did not receive adequate consideration for our candidates, felt the rules changed a bit somewhat as the process went forward, but at no time did I ever feel the need to make any allegations about intentional impropriety. This despite the fact the NCSG, NCUC and NPOC (three groups I have some role in representing on Council), unlike the IPC, has nobody currently represented on the leadership team. The perfect is sometimes difficult to achieve but the lack thereof does not mean the existence of intentional culpability on the part of anyone. I agree with the decision of the Council leadership team in this instance. If Mason is willing to continue in the role, I'd suggest we defer this appointment for the new Council to make when it takes office in the fall. Henceforth it might be a good idea to formalise appointments of this sort so they correspond with Council terms and the AGM. Best, Ed ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From*: "Paul McGrady" <policy@paulmcgrady.com> *Sent*: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 4:04 PM *To*: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> *Cc*: "Susan Kawaguchi" <susank@fb.com>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> *Subject*: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
All,
I am simply amazed by this. Not only are we suggesting that we pretend there was some confidentiality around the EOI process, which there wasn’t, which gives cover for the vacuum in which we have been asked to support James’ proposal (the vacuum now being dealt with by the disclosure of the applicant that James has pre-disqualified even though that applicant is more than qualified, it appears that there is actually stomach for the notion that such pre-disqualification is not only proper but within the remit of the GNSO Council “leadership.” A few (rhetorical) follow on questions then:
1. Assuming the inappropriate railroading of the IPC candidate continues, in any future round of EOIs, will the secret review and disqualification rest only with James or can we all secretly review and disqualify candidates?
2.Will the secret review and disqualification apply for all positions for which the GNSO Council calls for volunteers or just the GAC Liaison role? If not all, which roles will have a secret review and disqualification period?
3.Any ideas on how the heck I explain this targeted exclusion to the IPC? As you can imagine, I am way over my skis with them by vouching prior to the vote for Chair of the Council that the IPC would be treated neutrally. This is a PR disaster.
Folks, it’s not too late to course correct here and confirm the GNSO community’s volunteer.
Best,
Paul
*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Amr Elsadr *Sent:* Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:33 AM *To:* James M. Bladel *Cc:* Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List *Subject:* Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi,
Thank you, James, for this additional information. Speaking for myself, I do not believe I need to know who the applicant was (or even applicants in another hypothetical situation where there have been more than one). I understand the concerns raised for transparency in the selection process, but also appreciate the concerns with publishing the names of applicants. I would not want the need to publish the names publicly deter GNSO community members from applying when a call of volunteers is made. Apparently, the position is already proving to be somewhat difficult to fill. No need to make it more so.
However, as James suggested, if applicants whose applications are turned down consent to their names and applications being published, then I would then certainly not object. This should be up to the applicant.
Still…, with such a basic requirement needing to be fulfilled, along with the “plus” qualification, I am confident that the Council leadership team can make a good decision on this on the Council’s behalf. And with the information already shared, I don’t feel the need to learn more to support James suggestion of postponing the selection of the GAC liaison.
Thanks.
Amr
On Jun 8, 2016, at 1:59 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote:
Hi Susan -
You are correct, and I do recall the Council's conversation in Marrakesh, but the group didn’t come to a decision either way. Referencing the selection process and criteria contained in the "Call for Candidates"(attached) that was adopted by the Council and distributed by Glen to the SGs and Cs, we note under “skills and experience” that:
/* Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or review in the GNSO///
And
/* A former or recently departed GNSO Councilor is likely to be well-qualified for the position but this is not a necessary criterion for the Liaison./
With the first being held up as a requirement, and the second expressed more as a “plus”.
In our current situation, I can report that we received one submission, and it did not meet ether criteria. This could be because the candidate lacks the requested experience, or because their submitted Expression of Interest was incomplete. We also received a handful (~3) verbal inquiries from other candidates, but those were later withdrawn. In all scenarios, I believe our selection would benefit from extending the call for candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57.
If it the consensus of the Council is that we now publish the submission received (including the candidate’s name), then I would ask Council to grant me the opportunity to go back to that candidate and obtain their consent, and that publication of the EOI should only proceed if the candidate agrees.
Thanks—
J.
*From:*Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com <mailto:susank@fb.com>> *Date:*Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 *To:*James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> *Subject:*Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi James,
We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn’t understand why this had to be secretive at that time. Who would make the selection if we had enough candidates?
The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and who was selected on the team.
I think we aim for more transparency.
Susan Kawaguchi
Domain Name Manager
Facebook Legal Dept.
*From:*<owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> *Date:*Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM *To:*Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> *Subject:*Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi Paul -
Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected.
I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall.
Thanks—
J.
*From:*Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> *Date:*Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 *To:*James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> *Subject:*RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi James,
I guess until I know who’s offer of help we are turning down, I’m not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don’t think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request?
Regards,
Paul
*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]*On Behalf Of*James M. Bladel *Sent:*Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM *To:*Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' *Subject:*Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi Phil & Paul -
We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago.
Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil’s point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.)
Apologies if this sounds like I’m being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall.
Hope this helps.
Thanks—
J.
*From:*Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> *Date:*Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 *To:*Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> *Subject:*RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
I’m inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term “underwhelming” denote no applications?
Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously.
Best to all, Philip
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/Cell*
**
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]*On Behalf Of*Paul McGrady *Sent:*Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM *To:*'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' *Subject:*RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update
Hi James,
Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks!
Best,
Paul
*From:*owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>[mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org]*On Behalf Of*James M. Bladel *Sent:*Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM *To:*GNSO Council List *Subject:*[council] GAC Liaison - Update
Dear Council Colleagues -
Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad.
Therefore, with this in mind, I’d like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO – GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors.
Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason.
Thanks—
J.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG -www.avg.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMF-g&c=5...> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
<GNSO Liaison to the GAC - call for candidates - FINAL 30 March 2016v1[1][1].doc>
Thanks Ed. There are no "apparent allegations of any impropriety" only speaking the truth that this is not the way this should have been handled and, if universalized across all future volunteer opportunities breaks down into the absurd. I know some folks get uncomfortable when others don't go along to get along and if my not going along to get along perturbed you, I am sorry for the effect that it had on you - but not for speaking up against this broken process. Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Edward Morris Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 10:32 AM To: Amr Elsadr; James M. Bladel; Paul McGrady Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi, First, I just want to thank Mason for agreeing to continue to serve as liaison. His dedication is much appreciated. I would have great difficulty supporting anyone who does not have extensive GNSO policy development experience for this role. This is a relatively sensitive position and a well meaning individual without the requisite skill set could do more harm than good. At this delicate stage in the transition that's a chance we just can't take. I should note that I personally considered applying for this position but felt I did not yet have the longevity or necessary experience to perform adequately in the role. This should be a very high level appointment. I am perturbed at the apparent allegations of any impropriety in the process. I wasn't happy with the CCT selection process, feel the noncommercial community did not receive adequate consideration for our candidates, felt the rules changed a bit somewhat as the process went forward, but at no time did I ever feel the need to make any allegations about intentional impropriety. This despite the fact the NCSG, NCUC and NPOC (three groups I have some role in representing on Council), unlike the IPC, has nobody currently represented on the leadership team. The perfect is sometimes difficult to achieve but the lack thereof does not mean the existence of intentional culpability on the part of anyone. I agree with the decision of the Council leadership team in this instance. If Mason is willing to continue in the role, I'd suggest we defer this appointment for the new Council to make when it takes office in the fall. Henceforth it might be a good idea to formalise appointments of this sort so they correspond with Council terms and the AGM. Best, Ed _____ From: "Paul McGrady" <policy@paulmcgrady.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 4:04 PM To: "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr@egyptig.org>, "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com> Cc: "Susan Kawaguchi" <susank@fb.com>, "GNSO Council List" <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update All, I am simply amazed by this. Not only are we suggesting that we pretend there was some confidentiality around the EOI process, which there wasn't, which gives cover for the vacuum in which we have been asked to support James' proposal (the vacuum now being dealt with by the disclosure of the applicant that James has pre-disqualified even though that applicant is more than qualified, it appears that there is actually stomach for the notion that such pre-disqualification is not only proper but within the remit of the GNSO Council "leadership." A few (rhetorical) follow on questions then: 1. Assuming the inappropriate railroading of the IPC candidate continues, in any future round of EOIs, will the secret review and disqualification rest only with James or can we all secretly review and disqualify candidates? 2. Will the secret review and disqualification apply for all positions for which the GNSO Council calls for volunteers or just the GAC Liaison role? If not all, which roles will have a secret review and disqualification period? 3. Any ideas on how the heck I explain this targeted exclusion to the IPC? As you can imagine, I am way over my skis with them by vouching prior to the vote for Chair of the Council that the IPC would be treated neutrally. This is a PR disaster. Folks, it's not too late to course correct here and confirm the GNSO community's volunteer. Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:33 AM To: James M. Bladel Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi, Thank you, James, for this additional information. Speaking for myself, I do not believe I need to know who the applicant was (or even applicants in another hypothetical situation where there have been more than one). I understand the concerns raised for transparency in the selection process, but also appreciate the concerns with publishing the names of applicants. I would not want the need to publish the names publicly deter GNSO community members from applying when a call of volunteers is made. Apparently, the position is already proving to be somewhat difficult to fill. No need to make it more so. However, as James suggested, if applicants whose applications are turned down consent to their names and applications being published, then I would then certainly not object. This should be up to the applicant. Still., with such a basic requirement needing to be fulfilled, along with the "plus" qualification, I am confident that the Council leadership team can make a good decision on this on the Council's behalf. And with the information already shared, I don't feel the need to learn more to support James suggestion of postponing the selection of the GAC liaison. Thanks. Amr On Jun 8, 2016, at 1:59 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote: Hi Susan - You are correct, and I do recall the Council's conversation in Marrakesh, but the group didn't come to a decision either way. Referencing the selection process and criteria contained in the "Call for Candidates"(attached) that was adopted by the Council and distributed by Glen to the SGs and Cs, we note under "skills and experience" that: * Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or review in the GNSO And * A former or recently departed GNSO Councilor is likely to be well-qualified for the position but this is not a necessary criterion for the Liaison. With the first being held up as a requirement, and the second expressed more as a "plus". In our current situation, I can report that we received one submission, and it did not meet ether criteria. This could be because the candidate lacks the requested experience, or because their submitted Expression of Interest was incomplete. We also received a handful (~3) verbal inquiries from other candidates, but those were later withdrawn. In all scenarios, I believe our selection would benefit from extending the call for candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57. If it the consensus of the Council is that we now publish the submission received (including the candidate's name), then I would ask Council to grant me the opportunity to go back to that candidate and obtain their consent, and that publication of the EOI should only proceed if the candidate agrees. Thanks- J. From: Susan Kawaguchi < <mailto:susank@fb.com> susank@fb.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 To: James Bladel < <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> jbladel@godaddy.com>, Paul McGrady < <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> policy@paulmcgrady.com>, Phil Corwin < <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List < <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn't understand why this had to be secretive at that time. Who would make the selection if we had enough candidates? The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and who was selected on the team. I think we aim for more transparency. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. From: < <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" < <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> jbladel@godaddy.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM To: Paul McGrady < <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> policy@paulmcgrady.com>, 'Phil Corwin' < <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> psc@vlaw-dc.com>, 'GNSO Council List' < <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Paul - Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected. I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall. Thanks- J. From: Paul McGrady < <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> policy@paulmcgrady.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 To: James Bladel < <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> jbladel@godaddy.com>, Phil Corwin < <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> psc@vlaw-dc.com>, GNSO Council List < <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, I guess until I know who's offer of help we are turning down, I'm not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don't think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request? Regards, Paul From: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> owner-council@gnso.icann.org [ <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Phil & Paul - We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago. Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil's point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.) Apologies if this sounds like I'm being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall. Hope this helps. Thanks- J. From: Phil Corwin < <mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> psc@vlaw-dc.com> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 To: Paul McGrady < <mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com> policy@paulmcgrady.com>, James Bladel < <mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com> jbladel@godaddy.com>, GNSO Council List < <mailto:council@gnso.icann.org> council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update I'm inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term "underwhelming" denote no applications? Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> owner-council@gnso.icann.org [ <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks! Best, Paul From: <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> owner-council@gnso.icann.org [ <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I'd like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO - GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks- J. _____ 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 _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMF-g&c= 5VD0RTtNlTh3ycd41b3MUw&r=gvEx8xF7ynrYQ7wShqEr-w&m=hXC3Qj-mLg92Z-SFun5NBlbBvW EeTyBXJec7jH8lma0&s=7sxeiejezt0AVXvDbIEyoJDh0dZhmITjW8AQWxiAfc4&e=> www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. <GNSO Liaison to the GAC - call for candidates - FINAL 30 March 2016v1[1][1].doc>
Hi Paul, There are simply too many statements you make in your last email that I disagree with, and you present them as pre-stablished facts that set the context for your (rhetorical) questions. Specifically:
On Jun 8, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
[SNIP]
(the vacuum now being dealt with by the disclosure of the applicant that James has pre-disqualified
I don’t agree that there is anything to support what you say here — that James has pre-disqualified anyone.
even though that applicant is more than qualified,
I haven’t read the EOI, but from your own description of Colin’s experience, my opinion is that saying he is “more than qualified” can be easily challenged. I, for one (and based on the limited information I have), don’t agree with your assertion.
it appears that there is actually stomach for the notion that such pre-disqualification is not only proper but within the remit of the GNSO Council “leadership.”
I don’t know about pre-disqualification, but yes…, I was under the impression that the Council “leadership” may need to turn down certain applications that are felt to not satisfy the requirements of the position. By the way…, it was the Council “leadership” that made this appointment back when Mason had applied for the job. I don’t recall there being any concerns expressed about this at the time, although I may have forgotten.
A few (rhetorical) follow on questions then:
1. Assuming the inappropriate railroading of the IPC candidate continues, in any future round of EOIs, will the secret review and disqualification rest only with James or can we all secretly review and disqualify candidates?
James is only one third of the Council “leadership”, Paul. Nothing here rested “only with James”. [SNIP]
3. Any ideas on how the heck I explain this targeted exclusion to the IPC? As you can imagine, I am way over my skis with them by vouching prior to the vote for Chair of the Council that the IPC would be treated neutrally. This is a PR disaster.
I don’t see why you believe that the IPC has been targeted for exclusion. Could you please explain why you believe this to be true? To me, it seems like the only exclusion (or more accurately; disqualification) made was for the individual applicant. Having said all that, Paul, there are some points you make that I believe warrant discussion, and this is perhaps a discussion we should have had before this process began. At the beginning of your email you said:
All,
I am simply amazed by this. Not only are we suggesting that we pretend there was some confidentiality around the EOI process, which there wasn’t, which gives cover for the vacuum in which we have been asked to support James’ proposal
Later on, you asked — and I know you said the questions were rhetorical ;-):
2. Will the secret review and disqualification apply for all positions for which the GNSO Council calls for volunteers or just the GAC Liaison role? If not all, which roles will have a secret review and disqualification period?
If memory serves, when the GNSO Council announced a call for applications for GNSO reverse liaisons to the GAC the first time around (when Mason was first selected), the EOIs were not confidential — and there were several of them last time around. They were shared on the Council list, despite the Council “leadership” making the final decision. This time, the process has changed to make the EOIs confidential. Like I said in an earlier email, I do not mind this. I believe that to publish them, the applicants should provide consent. The GNSO Council has several liaisons to groups that it charters. The differences between those liaisons and this one is probably that this liaison is to an AC (so obviously not chartered by the GNSO), but also that this liaison is provided travel support to participate in ICANN meetings. Seems fair to me that we have a discussion about whether or not the EOIs should be confidential. Ideally before another application round in the fall? Thanks. Amr
For the record, the expressions of interests received and evaluation of candidates by the GNSO leadership team were not made public in the last selection round either, if my memory serves me right. As such, the same process was followed here. Best regards, Marika Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@egyptig.org> Date: Wednesday 8 June 2016 at 10:07 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com>, Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Paul, There are simply too many statements you make in your last email that I disagree with, and you present them as pre-stablished facts that set the context for your (rhetorical) questions. Specifically: On Jun 8, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote: [SNIP] (the vacuum now being dealt with by the disclosure of the applicant that James has pre-disqualified I don’t agree that there is anything to support what you say here — that James has pre-disqualified anyone. even though that applicant is more than qualified, I haven’t read the EOI, but from your own description of Colin’s experience, my opinion is that saying he is “more than qualified” can be easily challenged. I, for one (and based on the limited information I have), don’t agree with your assertion. it appears that there is actually stomach for the notion that such pre-disqualification is not only proper but within the remit of the GNSO Council “leadership.” I don’t know about pre-disqualification, but yes…, I was under the impression that the Council “leadership” may need to turn down certain applications that are felt to not satisfy the requirements of the position. By the way…, it was the Council “leadership” that made this appointment back when Mason had applied for the job. I don’t recall there being any concerns expressed about this at the time, although I may have forgotten. A few (rhetorical) follow on questions then: 1. Assuming the inappropriate railroading of the IPC candidate continues, in any future round of EOIs, will the secret review and disqualification rest only with James or can we all secretly review and disqualify candidates? James is only one third of the Council “leadership”, Paul. Nothing here rested “only with James”. [SNIP] 3. Any ideas on how the heck I explain this targeted exclusion to the IPC? As you can imagine, I am way over my skis with them by vouching prior to the vote for Chair of the Council that the IPC would be treated neutrally. This is a PR disaster. I don’t see why you believe that the IPC has been targeted for exclusion. Could you please explain why you believe this to be true? To me, it seems like the only exclusion (or more accurately; disqualification) made was for the individual applicant. Having said all that, Paul, there are some points you make that I believe warrant discussion, and this is perhaps a discussion we should have had before this process began. At the beginning of your email you said: All, I am simply amazed by this. Not only are we suggesting that we pretend there was some confidentiality around the EOI process, which there wasn’t, which gives cover for the vacuum in which we have been asked to support James’ proposal Later on, you asked — and I know you said the questions were rhetorical ;-): 2. Will the secret review and disqualification apply for all positions for which the GNSO Council calls for volunteers or just the GAC Liaison role? If not all, which roles will have a secret review and disqualification period? If memory serves, when the GNSO Council announced a call for applications for GNSO reverse liaisons to the GAC the first time around (when Mason was first selected), the EOIs were not confidential — and there were several of them last time around. They were shared on the Council list, despite the Council “leadership” making the final decision. This time, the process has changed to make the EOIs confidential. Like I said in an earlier email, I do not mind this. I believe that to publish them, the applicants should provide consent. The GNSO Council has several liaisons to groups that it charters. The differences between those liaisons and this one is probably that this liaison is to an AC (so obviously not chartered by the GNSO), but also that this liaison is provided travel support to participate in ICANN meetings. Seems fair to me that we have a discussion about whether or not the EOIs should be confidential. Ideally before another application round in the fall? Thanks. Amr
Thanks Amr. The questions were noted as rhetorical for a reason and were designed to show that this process is seriously broken. Donna, I saw you also wrote putting forward the “non-conspiracy” theory. As mentioned before, I agree with that but that doesn’t make the process unbroken nor does it help with how this will be perceived. If we had a good, open, and transparent process fairly applied to all and this was the outcome we reached, that would be just fine. However, that is not what we are dealing with. Stephanie, thanks for your note. I think your ideas on process should be incorporated into an open and predictable process developed and agreed upon in advance of our next attempt to fill this role. All, apologies for not responding to any follow up emails. If I thought my continuing to engage on this topic would help us do the right thing, I would keep at it. But, given that I seem to be the lone voice here, I bow to, but do not consent to, what appears to be a fait accompli. Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 11:08 AM To: Paul McGrady Cc: James M. Bladel; Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Paul, There are simply too many statements you make in your last email that I disagree with, and you present them as pre-stablished facts that set the context for your (rhetorical) questions. Specifically: On Jun 8, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote: [SNIP] (the vacuum now being dealt with by the disclosure of the applicant that James has pre-disqualified I don’t agree that there is anything to support what you say here — that James has pre-disqualified anyone. even though that applicant is more than qualified, I haven’t read the EOI, but from your own description of Colin’s experience, my opinion is that saying he is “more than qualified” can be easily challenged. I, for one (and based on the limited information I have), don’t agree with your assertion. it appears that there is actually stomach for the notion that such pre-disqualification is not only proper but within the remit of the GNSO Council “leadership.” I don’t know about pre-disqualification, but yes…, I was under the impression that the Council “leadership” may need to turn down certain applications that are felt to not satisfy the requirements of the position. By the way…, it was the Council “leadership” that made this appointment back when Mason had applied for the job. I don’t recall there being any concerns expressed about this at the time, although I may have forgotten. A few (rhetorical) follow on questions then: 1. Assuming the inappropriate railroading of the IPC candidate continues, in any future round of EOIs, will the secret review and disqualification rest only with James or can we all secretly review and disqualify candidates? James is only one third of the Council “leadership”, Paul. Nothing here rested “only with James”. [SNIP] 3. Any ideas on how the heck I explain this targeted exclusion to the IPC? As you can imagine, I am way over my skis with them by vouching prior to the vote for Chair of the Council that the IPC would be treated neutrally. This is a PR disaster. I don’t see why you believe that the IPC has been targeted for exclusion. Could you please explain why you believe this to be true? To me, it seems like the only exclusion (or more accurately; disqualification) made was for the individual applicant. Having said all that, Paul, there are some points you make that I believe warrant discussion, and this is perhaps a discussion we should have had before this process began. At the beginning of your email you said: All, I am simply amazed by this. Not only are we suggesting that we pretend there was some confidentiality around the EOI process, which there wasn’t, which gives cover for the vacuum in which we have been asked to support James’ proposal Later on, you asked — and I know you said the questions were rhetorical ;-): 2. Will the secret review and disqualification apply for all positions for which the GNSO Council calls for volunteers or just the GAC Liaison role? If not all, which roles will have a secret review and disqualification period? If memory serves, when the GNSO Council announced a call for applications for GNSO reverse liaisons to the GAC the first time around (when Mason was first selected), the EOIs were not confidential — and there were several of them last time around. They were shared on the Council list, despite the Council “leadership” making the final decision. This time, the process has changed to make the EOIs confidential. Like I said in an earlier email, I do not mind this. I believe that to publish them, the applicants should provide consent. The GNSO Council has several liaisons to groups that it charters. The differences between those liaisons and this one is probably that this liaison is to an AC (so obviously not chartered by the GNSO), but also that this liaison is provided travel support to participate in ICANN meetings. Seems fair to me that we have a discussion about whether or not the EOIs should be confidential. Ideally before another application round in the fall? Thanks. Amr
Hi Paul Putting aside the rhetoric, there is no conspiracy because the candidate was from the IPC. The information provided in the EOI was minimal at best and as James has already noted, did not, in our view, meet the necessary criteria. As this was the only EOI received, the GNSO Leadership team had a conversation on how best to move forward and as a result we agreed to extend the call for candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57. The extension would not exclude the current candidate and would allow him the opportunity to provide more detailed information about his skills and experience for the position. Donna From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 7:58 AM To: 'Amr Elsadr' <aelsadr@egyptig.org>; 'James M. Bladel' <jbladel@godaddy.com> Cc: 'Susan Kawaguchi' <susank@fb.com>; 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update All, I am simply amazed by this. Not only are we suggesting that we pretend there was some confidentiality around the EOI process, which there wasn't, which gives cover for the vacuum in which we have been asked to support James' proposal (the vacuum now being dealt with by the disclosure of the applicant that James has pre-disqualified even though that applicant is more than qualified, it appears that there is actually stomach for the notion that such pre-disqualification is not only proper but within the remit of the GNSO Council "leadership." A few (rhetorical) follow on questions then: 1. Assuming the inappropriate railroading of the IPC candidate continues, in any future round of EOIs, will the secret review and disqualification rest only with James or can we all secretly review and disqualify candidates? 2. Will the secret review and disqualification apply for all positions for which the GNSO Council calls for volunteers or just the GAC Liaison role? If not all, which roles will have a secret review and disqualification period? 3. Any ideas on how the heck I explain this targeted exclusion to the IPC? As you can imagine, I am way over my skis with them by vouching prior to the vote for Chair of the Council that the IPC would be treated neutrally. This is a PR disaster. Folks, it's not too late to course correct here and confirm the GNSO community's volunteer. Best, Paul From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 9:33 AM To: James M. Bladel Cc: Susan Kawaguchi; GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi, Thank you, James, for this additional information. Speaking for myself, I do not believe I need to know who the applicant was (or even applicants in another hypothetical situation where there have been more than one). I understand the concerns raised for transparency in the selection process, but also appreciate the concerns with publishing the names of applicants. I would not want the need to publish the names publicly deter GNSO community members from applying when a call of volunteers is made. Apparently, the position is already proving to be somewhat difficult to fill. No need to make it more so. However, as James suggested, if applicants whose applications are turned down consent to their names and applications being published, then I would then certainly not object. This should be up to the applicant. Still..., with such a basic requirement needing to be fulfilled, along with the "plus" qualification, I am confident that the Council leadership team can make a good decision on this on the Council's behalf. And with the information already shared, I don't feel the need to learn more to support James suggestion of postponing the selection of the GAC liaison. Thanks. Amr On Jun 8, 2016, at 1:59 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> wrote: Hi Susan - You are correct, and I do recall the Council's conversation in Marrakesh, but the group didn't come to a decision either way. Referencing the selection process and criteria contained in the "Call for Candidates"(attached) that was adopted by the Council and distributed by Glen to the SGs and Cs, we note under "skills and experience" that: * Significant experience in and knowledge of the GNSO policy development process as well as of recent and current policy work under discussion and / or review in the GNSO And * A former or recently departed GNSO Councilor is likely to be well-qualified for the position but this is not a necessary criterion for the Liaison. With the first being held up as a requirement, and the second expressed more as a "plus". In our current situation, I can report that we received one submission, and it did not meet ether criteria. This could be because the candidate lacks the requested experience, or because their submitted Expression of Interest was incomplete. We also received a handful (~3) verbal inquiries from other candidates, but those were later withdrawn. In all scenarios, I believe our selection would benefit from extending the call for candidates and evaluation through ICANN 57. If it the consensus of the Council is that we now publish the submission received (including the candidate's name), then I would ask Council to grant me the opportunity to go back to that candidate and obtain their consent, and that publication of the EOI should only proceed if the candidate agrees. Thanks- J. From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com<mailto:susank@fb.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 16:42 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, We had a brief discussion about this in Marrakech and I didn't understand why this had to be secretive at that time. Who would make the selection if we had enough candidates? The CCT review team had over 70 applicants and everyone knows who applied and who was selected on the team. I think we aim for more transparency. Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept. From: <owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org>> on behalf of "James M. Bladel" <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, 'Phil Corwin' <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, 'GNSO Council List' <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Paul - Even if we had received a greater response and stuck with the original time line, the published Evaluation & Selection process did not envision disclosing the names of those volunteers who were not selected. I think that still applies, and we should not publish names on a public list. It would discourage folks from volunteering for future liaison roles, or change the reception of the Liaison by the GAC if that person were ultimately selected in the Fall. Thanks- J. From: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 14:35 To: James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, I guess until I know who's offer of help we are turning down, I'm not prepared to agree that we should turn it down. I also don't think there is any reason not to disclose that information and know if no procedure to not disclose it. We are not the NomCom. Can you please fully inform us so that we can decide on how to respond to your request? Regards, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:11 AM To: Phil Corwin; Paul McGrady; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: Re: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi Phil & Paul - We did receive some interest in the role, but significantly less so than when the Liaison was created two years ago. Also, none of the applicants had any previous experience with the GNSO Council or with PDP working groups (chair or participant), which were key considerations in the selection process. Additionally, we received some verbal indications of interested candidates, but these were withdrawn prior to the deadline. (Most likely due to the irregular term, but I also note Phil's point about the time commitment during ICANN meetings.) Apologies if this sounds like I'm being coy, but I am attempting to address your questions without divulging too many details about the applicants, should they wish to resubmit in the fall. Hope this helps. Thanks- J. From: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 9:08 To: Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com<mailto:policy@paulmcgrady.com>>, James Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com<mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com>>, GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:council@gnso.icann.org>> Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update I'm inclined to agree with the proposed timetable, but like Paul would like a bit more data. In particular, does the term "underwhelming" denote no applications? Also, it may not just be a timing issue, but the fact that the Liaison has to commit to spend so much time in GAC meetings when attending an ICANN meeting in which their primary interest may be in other discussions going on simultaneously. Best to all, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 7:22 AM To: 'James M. Bladel'; 'GNSO Council List' Subject: RE: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Hi James, Before opining, can we have the full data set? Please let us know who expressed interest. Thanks! Best, Paul From:owner-council@gnso.icann.org<mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 8:38 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] GAC Liaison - Update Dear Council Colleagues - Recently we closed the nomination period for candidates interested in being considered for the role of GNSO Liaison to the GAC. Unfortunately, the response from the GNSO community was underwhelming. The Vice Chairs and I believe that this may be at least partly attributable to the timing of the announcement, as more candidates could be interested in the role if it coincided with the terms of other elected and appointed positions, which is the conclusion of the AGM in Hyderabad. Therefore, with this in mind, I'd like to propose that we postpone the selection of a new GNSO - GAC Liaison until later in the fall, with the (rough) timeline listed below. It is expected that the additional time will generate renewed attention to the role, additional expressions of interest from prospective candidates, and permanently align the term of this position with that of other terms, including most Councilors. Please let me know if you have any concerns or objections to this approach. On a related note, Mason Cole has graciously agreed to stay on a few extra months to ensure continuity. Thank you, Mason. Thanks- J. ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.avg.com&d=CwMF-g&c=5...> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4568/12262 - Release Date: 05/19/16 Internal Virus Database is out of date. <GNSO Liaison to the GAC - call for candidates - FINAL 30 March 2016v1[1][1].doc>
participants (13)
-
Amr Elsadr -
Austin, Donna -
David Cake -
Drazek, Keith -
Edward Morris -
James M. Bladel -
Marika Konings -
Paul McGrady -
Phil Corwin -
Stephanie Perrin -
Susan Kawaguchi -
Volker Greimann -
WUKnoben