[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Please participate - poll on RDS PDP WG leadership team characteristics
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Feb 4 14:55:02 UTC 2016
I cannot speak for James, but I will repeat that I do object to ICANN
volunteers from other SGs playing a leadership role, even wonderful
contenders such as Holly! Given the somewhat tumultuous discussions
that have gone on at the CCWG over the past year, it seems to me prudent
that the GNSO lead its own processes. Furthermore, the WHOIS debates
over the past 15 years have amply demonstrated the different economic
and policy interests in the data, and these interests tend to be sharply
divided along stakeholder groups. Ensuring a balance of those
stakeholder groups on the leadership team from the get-go will help
diminish perceptions of unfairness and lack of trust.
That in no way diminishes the important role and contributions of
volunteers to this committee, and I would stress that there are likely
to be be working groups established in this (doubtless multi-year
effort) where people can contribute in a leader role. However, this is
undoubtedly going to be a fractious process and I think it is reasonable
to look for previous participation at ICANN, not necessarily leadership
of a pdp per se, but demonstrated ability to remain neutral, understand
procedure, and support staff who are going to be doing a great deal of
work for us. With great respect to all volunteers, I don't think this
is a role for those who have not recently participated in at least some
kind of working group at ICANN. It is very important that we have a
broad range of expertise and talent represented here, but let us be
clear about the various roles we all will be playing.
My original point, which James clarified far better than I had
originally expressed it, is that volunteers who are not used to ICANN
and its processes will not understand any of the political questions
embedded in the poll, meaning no disrespect to staff who created that poll.
If I may reiterate the point that Michele made, many of the SOIs of
people who have volunteered for this work need serious editing and
clarification. If staff could review the list and reach out to those in
question it would be appreciated. Our membership list for NCUC is
public, non-members are welcome to apply.
And if I may respond to a point that Dr. Williams made: "I would suggest
that we leave it to the leadership group to decide who “leads” it…all of
us are capable of leading"
1. We are discussing the process of how to select that leadership group
at the moment, once that group is determined, how they spell one another
off is of course up to them with group concensus, providing procedures
are duly followed (and I for one depend on Marika to remind us of
procedures on a regular basis)
2. With great respect, we are not all equal in our leadership ability
and experience. This is why several of us are insisting on demonstrated
ability to perform a neutral, balanced role in an ICANN setting. I
think it is quite challenging. For those who are new to ICANN,
following this group for a year or so every week will give you a rich
and varied experience which will doubtless be useful in future efforts.
I am sorry to go on at such length, but I wanted to dispel any
impression I had given that I was intending this to be an insider
process....far from it, I am very keen on recruiting (for instance) some
individuals who have knowledge of data protection and human rights law
who have rarely in the past participated at ICANN, resulting in
unfortunate policies that violate national law. However, such new
individuals/volunteers with varied expertise are, regardless of past
leadership roles, perhaps not the best choices for the leadership team.
I speak as a newbie with only 3 years of working experience at ICANN,
who has now participated in at least 6 working groups. Doing a good job
here, in my view, requires a lot of learning and bandwidth.
Kind regards,
Stephanie Perrin
On 2016-02-04 6:07, Holly Raiche wrote:
> Point of clarification James
>
> I think we all put our hands together when Chuck put his hand up. He
> is the obvious Chair of this PDP from my perspective (and, I believe,
> a large number of hoers) - with his own stated qualification that it
> is for Phase one. But we also all agreed that he would need help -
> Vice-chairs. Are you objecting to other ICANN folk (or others with
> loads of ICANN experience) in those positions as well?
>
> Holly
> On 4 Feb 2016, at 6:25 pm, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net
> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Holly,
>> Yes apologies for the typo and yes as I said later in the post I do
>> object to GNSO PDPs being led by non-GNSO members. This is my own
>> personal opinion but given the current discussions I thought I should
>> be clear in my position.
>>
>> -jg
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On 4 Feb 2016, at 06:59, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net
>> <mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi James
>>>
>>> Just a question about your first sentence - probably caused by what
>>> I think is a misspelling of ‘linking’. Are you seriously objecting
>>> to leadership roles for people who are not members of the GNSO?
>>>
>>> Just checking
>>>
>>> Holly
>>> On 4 Feb 2016, at 5:15 pm, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net
>>> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with your point in principle Sana, but in reality I think a
>>>> couple of us are concerned that the poll is being used for some
>>>> strange questions that are more political in nature such as the
>>>> question on leadership inkling people from outside of the GNSO. The
>>>> results of this first poll will be used to determine eligibility
>>>> for leadership positions based on a set of criteria that will be
>>>> formed from the poll.
>>>>
>>>> Given the extremely complex political aspects of WHOIS and its
>>>> interrelations with so many areas of the community it may be
>>>> extremely difficult for a newcomer to the entire PDP process and in
>>>> particular to WHOIS/RDS to make a fully educated decision on some
>>>> of the questions posed. So its not so much that experience and
>>>> understanding of the landscape is necessary to be polled, but that
>>>> to make a fully informed decision will take longer than the 2 weeks
>>>> that the PDP has been running so far.
>>>>
>>>> Take for example the issues that some of us have noticed with
>>>> peoples SOI’s, there are people wit incorrect information and
>>>> affiliations, people claiming to be part of constituencies that
>>>> they are not and people listing themselves as independent when they
>>>> are known to have affiliations and sometimes business relationships
>>>> with parties with commercial and legal interests at stake in the
>>>> RDS discussions, until we get the basics such as these things
>>>> correct its hard to take an informed decision on the need or want
>>>> to take an independent member of the working group into a
>>>> leadership role that is not GNSO affiliated.
>>>>
>>>> Also there is a principle involved here, I firmly and strongly
>>>> believe that the GNSO operates its membership in an open and
>>>> inclusive manner, where almost everyone can find a home for
>>>> themselves if they wish to participate in the policy development
>>>> process. And even if one feels the need to be independent we offer
>>>> open membership to non-affiliated persons and they are considered
>>>> fully during all dissuasions and decision making efforts. However
>>>> at the core of the PDP is the fact that it is the GNSOs mission to
>>>> create gTLD policy through its PDP, and that that role sits firmly
>>>> with the GNSO not with the other ACs and Sos.
>>>>
>>>> I am likely going to open myself up to some backlash here but I am
>>>> of the opinion that we cannot allow GNSO policy development to be
>>>> led by other parts of the ICANN ecosphere, the role of the GNSO is
>>>> diluted when we do so and results in a GNSO that is not performing
>>>> the self-control that it needs to do in order to fulfil its own
>>>> mission. In particular when it comes to AC’s participating in
>>>> leadership roles on a PDP like this I feel that it in some way
>>>> violates the system of checks and balances that ICANN is formed on,
>>>> AC’s such as ALAC an the GAC have the opportunity to provide advice
>>>> to the board when the results of GNSO PDPs come for consideration
>>>> by the ICANN board, to wish to lead those same PDPs I feel takes
>>>> two bites from the apple, and given that ALAC and At-Large members
>>>> are free to participate in the policy development process as
>>>> decisional members I think that adding leadership roles to that
>>>> dynamic complicates things massively.
>>>>
>>>> Bit of a wall of text but
>>>> TL;DR: Its the GNSOs role in ICANN to produce policy for gTLDs
>>>> therefore this needs to be a GNSO led process with open and
>>>> collaborative membership.
>>>>
>>>> -jg
>>>>
>>>> From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Sana Ali
>>>> <sana.ali2030 at gmail.com <mailto:sana.ali2030 at gmail.com>>
>>>> Date: Thursday 4 February 2016 at 1:33 a.m.
>>>> To: Jennifer Gore Standiford <JStandiford at web.com
>>>> <mailto:JStandiford at web.com>>
>>>> Cc: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>"
>>>> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Please participate - poll on RDS PDP
>>>> WG leadership team characteristics
>>>>
>>>> Dear Stephanie,
>>>>
>>>> I’ll respectfully disagree with you here.
>>>>
>>>> Experience should certainly be a matter of importance when
>>>> determining who should be in leadership roles, but to suggest it
>>>> should also be required for something as simple as voting on who
>>>> should be in those roles, based on pretty straightforward and
>>>> comprehensible principles, I find a bit dangerous. It inhibits
>>>> participation based on…prior participation, which can become a
>>>> slippery slope.
>>>>
>>>> And from following the discussion, as a newcomer, I have at least
>>>> picked up on the fact that even more experienced members of this
>>>> group seem in no way unanimous on what should be the key
>>>> characteristics of the team.
>>>>
>>>> My two cents (with full disclosure that these are indeed rather
>>>> newly-minted pennies)
>>>> Sana Ali
>>>>
>>>> sana.ali2030 at gmail.com <mailto:sana.ali2030 at gmail.com>
>>>> https://ca.linkedin.com/in/sanaali2030
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 8:00 PM, Jennifer Gore Standiford
>>>>> <JStandiford at web.com <mailto:JStandiford at web.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. +1
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:50 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a fundamental problem here, in my view. There are a
>>>>>> great many members of the group who are not accustomed to ICANN
>>>>>> and its SGs. We are therefore asking them to vote on something
>>>>>> with which they have no/little experience. Not sure it is going
>>>>>> to prove to be a useful survey.
>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2016-02-02 15:42, Marika Konings wrote:
>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As discussed, staff has created a poll to solicit the WG’s input
>>>>>>> on the key characteristics of the RDS PDP WG Leadership Team
>>>>>>> which we hope will help inform the the WG’s deliberations on
>>>>>>> this topic during next week’s meeting. This poll will be
>>>>>>> followed by a second poll later this week which will allow WG
>>>>>>> members to indicate which candidates they would like to endorse
>>>>>>> for the leadership team. To participate in the poll, please go
>>>>>>> to https://s.zoomerang.com/r/RDSPDPWGleadership. If you have
>>>>>>> difficulties accessing this page and/or completing the poll,
>>>>>>> please contact me off-list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please note that this poll is for WG members only. If you are an
>>>>>>> observer and want to become a member of the WG, please contact
>>>>>>> the GNSO secretariat at gnso-secs at icann.org.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Marika
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160204/5e99683b/attachment.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list