[council] GAC Liaison - Update

Marika Konings marika.konings at icann.org
Wed Jun 8 16:18:01 UTC 2016

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 Konings

Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

Email: marika.konings at 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 at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
Date: Wednesday 8 June 2016 at 10:07
To: Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com>
Cc: "James M. Bladel" <jbladel at godaddy.com>, Susan Kawaguchi <susank at fb.com>, GNSO Council List <council at 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.




On Jun 8, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Paul McGrady <policy at paulmcgrady.com> wrote:




(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”.



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:




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?





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160608/5fe82408/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4619 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20160608/5fe82408/smime.p7s>

More information about the council mailing list