MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC
Councilors - As discussed on the list a couple of weeks ago, please see this Motion (attached and copied below) to extend the term of the current GNSO-GAC Liaison (Mason) through ICANN57 in Hyderabad, and to adopt a new timeline for selecting a successor liaison. I¹ve also added a new action item (Whereas #5 and Resolved #3) which calls for the development of a ³uniform selection process² as part of the post-transition implementation work. If adopted, this uniform selection process would be employed in some capacity to fill future appointments to Liaisons, Review Teams, and other working groups as necessary. Thank you, J. ________________________________________ Motion to extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC and confirm the extended timeline for the selection process for the next GNSO liaison to the GAC. Whereas: 1.The GNSO Council adopted the ŒRequest for Candidates GNSO Liaison to the GAC¹ which includes the proposed call for volunteers, application and evaluation process (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/request-liaison-gac-30mar16-en.pdf during its meeting on 14 April 2016. 2.The subsequent call for volunteers resulted in one incomplete application by the Deadline. 3. The GNSO Leadership team shared with the Council its assessment concerning the misalignment of the current deadline and the fact that the terms of possible candidates (e.g. former Council members) end at the ICANN AGM and as a result proposed to extend the selection timeline as follows: 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. 4. The current GNSO Liaison to the GAC has agreed to extend his term until the ICANN AGM in Hyderabad. 5. The GNSO Council leadership expects that appointments of this nature will continue to be necessary in the future, and these selections would benefit from a uniform selection process. Additionally, the Council notes the upcoming implementation work associated with the post-transition bylaws will include work on drafting a uniform selection process, and this could be expanded to cover additional roles. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council hereby confirms the extension of the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC, Mason Cole, until the end of the ICANN AGM in Hyderabad. 2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies of the extended selection timeline (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). 3. The Council instructs Staff to include consideration of a uniform selection process as part of the work associated with implementing the post-transition bylaws
Hi James, I am Ok with this, except I don't understand WHEREAS 2. What element of the application wasn't completed? I thought from all that back and forth that the reason to not move forward with the one candidate we had was that there was only 1 applicant and, in the opinion of some, he didn't fit the bill. This motion reads as if there was an application form that didn't have all the checkmarks checked. Can you please elaborate on what is meant by "incomplete"? Thanks in advance. Best, Paul -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 3:11 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC Councilors - As discussed on the list a couple of weeks ago, please see this Motion (attached and copied below) to extend the term of the current GNSO-GAC Liaison (Mason) through ICANN57 in Hyderabad, and to adopt a new timeline for selecting a successor liaison. I¹ve also added a new action item (Whereas #5 and Resolved #3) which calls for the development of a ³uniform selection process² as part of the post-transition implementation work. If adopted, this uniform selection process would be employed in some capacity to fill future appointments to Liaisons, Review Teams, and other working groups as necessary. Thank you, J. ________________________________________ Motion to extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC and confirm the extended timeline for the selection process for the next GNSO liaison to the GAC. Whereas: 1.The GNSO Council adopted the ŒRequest for Candidates GNSO Liaison to the GAC¹ which includes the proposed call for volunteers, application and evaluation process (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/request-liaison-gac-30mar16-en.pdf during its meeting on 14 April 2016. 2.The subsequent call for volunteers resulted in one incomplete application by the Deadline. 3. The GNSO Leadership team shared with the Council its assessment concerning the misalignment of the current deadline and the fact that the terms of possible candidates (e.g. former Council members) end at the ICANN AGM and as a result proposed to extend the selection timeline as follows: 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. 4. The current GNSO Liaison to the GAC has agreed to extend his term until the ICANN AGM in Hyderabad. 5. The GNSO Council leadership expects that appointments of this nature will continue to be necessary in the future, and these selections would benefit from a uniform selection process. Additionally, the Council notes the upcoming implementation work associated with the post-transition bylaws will include work on drafting a uniform selection process, and this could be expanded to cover additional roles. Resolved: 1. The GNSO Council hereby confirms the extension of the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC, Mason Cole, until the end of the ICANN AGM in Hyderabad. 2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies of the extended selection timeline (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). 3. The Council instructs Staff to include consideration of a uniform selection process as part of the work associated with implementing the post-transition bylaws
Hi Paul - You are correct, "incomplete" is probably not the best word. The intention was to leave the door open for the lone application received to be resubmitted. I'm fine if we strike "incomplete", or even the entirety of WHEREAS 2. Thank you, J. ____________ James Bladel
On Jun 20, 2016, at 16:35, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
Hi James,
I am Ok with this, except I don't understand WHEREAS 2. What element of the application wasn't completed? I thought from all that back and forth that the reason to not move forward with the one candidate we had was that there was only 1 applicant and, in the opinion of some, he didn't fit the bill. This motion reads as if there was an application form that didn't have all the checkmarks checked. Can you please elaborate on what is meant by "incomplete"? Thanks in advance.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 3:11 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC
Councilors -
As discussed on the list a couple of weeks ago, please see this Motion (attached and copied below) to extend the term of the current GNSO-GAC Liaison (Mason) through ICANN57 in Hyderabad, and to adopt a new timeline for selecting a successor liaison.
I¹ve also added a new action item (Whereas #5 and Resolved #3) which calls for the development of a ³uniform selection process² as part of the post-transition implementation work. If adopted, this uniform selection process would be employed in some capacity to fill future appointments to Liaisons, Review Teams, and other working groups as necessary.
Thank you,
J.
________________________________________
Motion to extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC and confirm the extended timeline for the selection process for the next GNSO liaison to the GAC.
Whereas:
1.The GNSO Council adopted the ŒRequest for Candidates GNSO Liaison to the GAC¹ which includes the proposed call for volunteers, application and evaluation process (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/request-liaison-gac-30mar16-en.pdf during its meeting on 14 April 2016.
2.The subsequent call for volunteers resulted in one incomplete application by the Deadline.
3. The GNSO Leadership team shared with the Council its assessment concerning the misalignment of the current deadline and the fact that the terms of possible candidates (e.g. former Council members) end at the ICANN AGM and as a result proposed to extend the selection timeline as follows: 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.
4. The current GNSO Liaison to the GAC has agreed to extend his term until the ICANN AGM in Hyderabad.
5. The GNSO Council leadership expects that appointments of this nature will continue to be necessary in the future, and these selections would benefit from a uniform selection process. Additionally, the Council notes the upcoming implementation work associated with the post-transition bylaws will include work on drafting a uniform selection process, and this could be expanded to cover additional roles.
Resolved:
1. The GNSO Council hereby confirms the extension of the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC, Mason Cole, until the end of the ICANN AGM in Hyderabad.
2. The GNSO Council instructs the GNSO Secretariat to inform the GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies of the extended selection timeline (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).
3. The Council instructs Staff to include consideration of a uniform selection process as part of the work associated with implementing the post-transition bylaws
Thanks James. How about we strike it as written, and just say "whereas the volume of responses to the request for applications for the role was less robust than hoped for." Best, Paul Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 20, 2016, at 8:50 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Hi Paul -
You are correct, "incomplete" is probably not the best word. The intention was to leave the door open for the lone application received to be resubmitted.
I'm fine if we strike "incomplete", or even the entirety of WHEREAS 2.
Thank you,
J. ____________ James Bladel
On Jun 20, 2016, at 16:35, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
Hi James,
I am Ok with this, except I don't understand WHEREAS 2. What element of the application wasn't completed? I thought from all that back and forth that the reason to not move forward with the one candidate we had was that there was only 1 applicant and, in the opinion of some, he didn't fit the bill. This motion reads as if there was an application form that didn't have all the checkmarks checked. Can you please elaborate on what is meant by "incomplete"? Thanks in advance.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 3:11 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC
Councilors -
Hi Paul, I'm with you that WHEREAS 2 as originally suggested should be improved. However expressing or describing hopes in a motion seems to bring in some subjectivity which is difficult to assess. So I wonder whether this could be acceptable: 2. The subsequent call for volunteers resulted in the decision to extend the selection process. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:28 AM To: James M. Bladel Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC Thanks James. How about we strike it as written, and just say "whereas the volume of responses to the request for applications for the role was less robust than hoped for." Best, Paul Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 20, 2016, at 8:50 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Hi Paul -
You are correct, "incomplete" is probably not the best word. The intention was to leave the door open for the lone application received to be resubmitted.
I'm fine if we strike "incomplete", or even the entirety of WHEREAS 2.
Thank you,
J. ____________ James Bladel
On Jun 20, 2016, at 16:35, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
Hi James,
I am Ok with this, except I don't understand WHEREAS 2. What element of the application wasn't completed? I thought from all that back and forth that the reason to not move forward with the one candidate we had was that there was only 1 applicant and, in the opinion of some, he didn't fit the bill. This motion reads as if there was an application form that didn't have all the checkmarks checked. Can you please elaborate on what is meant by "incomplete"? Thanks in advance.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 3:11 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC
Councilors -
Thanks WU. I think that is fine since it reflects the reality of what happened and doesn't require any sort of judgment on the quality of the sole applicant. Thanks! Best, Paul Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 21, 2016, at 6:35 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Hi Paul,
I'm with you that WHEREAS 2 as originally suggested should be improved. However expressing or describing hopes in a motion seems to bring in some subjectivity which is difficult to assess. So I wonder whether this could be acceptable:
2. The subsequent call for volunteers resulted in the decision to extend the selection process.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:28 AM To: James M. Bladel Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC
Thanks James. How about we strike it as written, and just say "whereas the volume of responses to the request for applications for the role was less robust than hoped for."
Best, Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 20, 2016, at 8:50 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Hi Paul -
You are correct, "incomplete" is probably not the best word. The intention was to leave the door open for the lone application received to be resubmitted.
I'm fine if we strike "incomplete", or even the entirety of WHEREAS 2.
Thank you,
J. ____________ James Bladel
On Jun 20, 2016, at 16:35, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
Hi James,
I am Ok with this, except I don't understand WHEREAS 2. What element of the application wasn't completed? I thought from all that back and forth that the reason to not move forward with the one candidate we had was that there was only 1 applicant and, in the opinion of some, he didn't fit the bill. This motion reads as if there was an application form that didn't have all the checkmarks checked. Can you please elaborate on what is meant by "incomplete"? Thanks in advance.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 3:11 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC
Councilors -
Thanks all for weighing in. There currently isn¹t a second to the motion, so I take these changes as friendly and ask that Marika & team modify the WHEREAS 2 language accordingly (the most recent version submitted by Wolf-Ulrich, below). J. On 6/21/16, 6:50 , "Paul McGrady" <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
Thanks WU. I think that is fine since it reflects the reality of what happened and doesn't require any sort of judgment on the quality of the sole applicant. Thanks!
Best, Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 21, 2016, at 6:35 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Hi Paul,
I'm with you that WHEREAS 2 as originally suggested should be improved. However expressing or describing hopes in a motion seems to bring in some subjectivity which is difficult to assess. So I wonder whether this could be acceptable:
2. The subsequent call for volunteers resulted in the decision to extend the selection process.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:28 AM To: James M. Bladel Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC
Thanks James. How about we strike it as written, and just say "whereas the volume of responses to the request for applications for the role was less robust than hoped for."
Best, Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 20, 2016, at 8:50 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Hi Paul -
You are correct, "incomplete" is probably not the best word. The intention was to leave the door open for the lone application received to be resubmitted.
I'm fine if we strike "incomplete", or even the entirety of WHEREAS 2.
Thank you,
J. ____________ James Bladel
On Jun 20, 2016, at 16:35, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
Hi James,
I am Ok with this, except I don't understand WHEREAS 2. What element of the application wasn't completed? I thought from all that back and forth that the reason to not move forward with the one candidate we had was that there was only 1 applicant and, in the opinion of some, he didn't fit the bill. This motion reads as if there was an application form that didn't have all the checkmarks checked. Can you please elaborate on what is meant by "incomplete"? Thanks in advance.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 3:11 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC
Councilors -
I would second the amended motion as proposed by Wolf Ulrich. Volker Am 21.06.2016 um 15:30 schrieb James M. Bladel:
Thanks all for weighing in.
There currently isn¹t a second to the motion, so I take these changes as friendly and ask that Marika & team modify the WHEREAS 2 language accordingly (the most recent version submitted by Wolf-Ulrich, below).
J.
On 6/21/16, 6:50 , "Paul McGrady" <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
Thanks WU. I think that is fine since it reflects the reality of what happened and doesn't require any sort of judgment on the quality of the sole applicant. Thanks!
Best, Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 21, 2016, at 6:35 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Hi Paul,
I'm with you that WHEREAS 2 as originally suggested should be improved. However expressing or describing hopes in a motion seems to bring in some subjectivity which is difficult to assess. So I wonder whether this could be acceptable:
2. The subsequent call for volunteers resulted in the decision to extend the selection process.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:28 AM To: James M. Bladel Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC
Thanks James. How about we strike it as written, and just say "whereas the volume of responses to the request for applications for the role was less robust than hoped for."
Best, Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 20, 2016, at 8:50 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Hi Paul -
You are correct, "incomplete" is probably not the best word. The intention was to leave the door open for the lone application received to be resubmitted.
I'm fine if we strike "incomplete", or even the entirety of WHEREAS 2.
Thank you,
J. ____________ James Bladel
On Jun 20, 2016, at 16:35, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
Hi James,
I am Ok with this, except I don't understand WHEREAS 2. What element of the application wasn't completed? I thought from all that back and forth that the reason to not move forward with the one candidate we had was that there was only 1 applicant and, in the opinion of some, he didn't fit the bill. This motion reads as if there was an application form that didn't have all the checkmarks checked. Can you please elaborate on what is meant by "incomplete"? Thanks in advance.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 3:11 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC
Councilors -
-- 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.
Dear All, The motion has been modified accordingly with the friendly amendment from Wolf-Ulrich Knoben and Volker Greimann has been noted as seconding the amended motion. https://community.icann.org/x/EwSOAw Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: mardi 21 juin 2016 16:30 Cc: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org> Subject: Re: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC Thanks all for weighing in. There currently isn¹t a second to the motion, so I take these changes as friendly and ask that Marika & team modify the WHEREAS 2 language accordingly (the most recent version submitted by Wolf-Ulrich, below). J. On 6/21/16, 6:50 , "Paul McGrady" <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
Thanks WU. I think that is fine since it reflects the reality of what happened and doesn't require any sort of judgment on the quality of the sole applicant. Thanks!
Best, Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 21, 2016, at 6:35 AM, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Hi Paul,
I'm with you that WHEREAS 2 as originally suggested should be improved. However expressing or describing hopes in a motion seems to bring in some subjectivity which is difficult to assess. So I wonder whether this could be acceptable:
2. The subsequent call for volunteers resulted in the decision to extend the selection process.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:28 AM To: James M. Bladel Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC
Thanks James. How about we strike it as written, and just say "whereas the volume of responses to the request for applications for the role was less robust than hoped for."
Best, Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 20, 2016, at 8:50 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Hi Paul -
You are correct, "incomplete" is probably not the best word. The intention was to leave the door open for the lone application received to be resubmitted.
I'm fine if we strike "incomplete", or even the entirety of WHEREAS 2.
Thank you,
J. ____________ James Bladel
On Jun 20, 2016, at 16:35, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
Hi James,
I am Ok with this, except I don't understand WHEREAS 2. What element of the application wasn't completed? I thought from all that back and forth that the reason to not move forward with the one candidate we had was that there was only 1 applicant and, in the opinion of some, he didn't fit the bill. This motion reads as if there was an application form that didn't have all the checkmarks checked. Can you please elaborate on what is meant by "incomplete"? Thanks in advance.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 3:11 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC
Councilors -
I support this wording. It is sufficiently neutral and makes neither positive nor negative assumptions about previous applications. Volker Am 21.06.2016 um 13:35 schrieb WUKnoben:
Hi Paul,
I'm with you that WHEREAS 2 as originally suggested should be improved. However expressing or describing hopes in a motion seems to bring in some subjectivity which is difficult to assess. So I wonder whether this could be acceptable:
2. The subsequent call for volunteers resulted in the decision to extend the selection process.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:28 AM To: James M. Bladel Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC
Thanks James. How about we strike it as written, and just say "whereas the volume of responses to the request for applications for the role was less robust than hoped for."
Best, Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 20, 2016, at 8:50 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Hi Paul -
You are correct, "incomplete" is probably not the best word. The intention was to leave the door open for the lone application received to be resubmitted.
I'm fine if we strike "incomplete", or even the entirety of WHEREAS 2.
Thank you,
J. ____________ James Bladel
On Jun 20, 2016, at 16:35, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
Hi James,
I am Ok with this, except I don't understand WHEREAS 2. What element of the application wasn't completed? I thought from all that back and forth that the reason to not move forward with the one candidate we had was that there was only 1 applicant and, in the opinion of some, he didn't fit the bill. This motion reads as if there was an application form that didn't have all the checkmarks checked. Can you please elaborate on what is meant by "incomplete"? Thanks in advance.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 3:11 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC
Councilors -
-- 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.
+1 Sent from my iPhone
On 21 Jun 2016, at 12:40, WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben@t-online.de> wrote:
Hi Paul,
I'm with you that WHEREAS 2 as originally suggested should be improved. However expressing or describing hopes in a motion seems to bring in some subjectivity which is difficult to assess. So I wonder whether this could be acceptable:
2. The subsequent call for volunteers resulted in the decision to extend the selection process.
Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Paul McGrady Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 4:28 AM To: James M. Bladel Cc: GNSO Council List Subject: Re: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC
Thanks James. How about we strike it as written, and just say "whereas the volume of responses to the request for applications for the role was less robust than hoped for."
Best, Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 20, 2016, at 8:50 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel@godaddy.com> wrote:
Hi Paul -
You are correct, "incomplete" is probably not the best word. The intention was to leave the door open for the lone application received to be resubmitted.
I'm fine if we strike "incomplete", or even the entirety of WHEREAS 2.
Thank you,
J. ____________ James Bladel
On Jun 20, 2016, at 16:35, Paul McGrady <policy@paulmcgrady.com> wrote:
Hi James,
I am Ok with this, except I don't understand WHEREAS 2. What element of the application wasn't completed? I thought from all that back and forth that the reason to not move forward with the one candidate we had was that there was only 1 applicant and, in the opinion of some, he didn't fit the bill. This motion reads as if there was an application form that didn't have all the checkmarks checked. Can you please elaborate on what is meant by "incomplete"? Thanks in advance.
Best, Paul
-----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of James M. Bladel Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 3:11 PM To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] MOTION - To extend the term of the current GNSO Liaison to the GAC
Councilors -
participants (6)
-
Edward Morris -
Glen de Saint Géry -
James M. Bladel -
Paul McGrady -
Volker Greimann -
WUKnoben