[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Please participate - poll on RDS PDP WG leadership team characteristics

[Gomes, Chuck]

Sana,

Without detracting from any of the points that you made, I want to say that the GNSO has had WGs that were chaired by ALAC members and that they did a very good job.

Chuck

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Sana Ali
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2016 12:23 PM
To: Marika Konings
Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Please participate - poll on RDS PDP WG leadership team characteristics

Hello, Everyone!

I'd like to say I have perhaps learned more from reading this thread than from looking through countless official reports. While I recognize the importance of both, I would urge that these kinds of disagreements continue to be aired and elaborated on for everyone's benefit.

"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."

Thank you Stephanie, James, and everyone else for elaborating on matters of concern, it allows me, and I am sure others to develop more nuanced perspectives on what is being asked and what the implications of it are.

"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."

I found this particularly illuminating, James.


"I would be happy to volunteer to buddy up with anyone who would like some help to navigate the subject matter and processes that structure our work.  I am sure others would be happy to do that too.  The staff did a super job of providing an excellent tutorial this week but I think we need more than that...we need people to link with people to create constructive dialog."

Thank you Liz, for this suggestion. I absolutely agree that such a buddy system would be very useful, and I thank everyone who I have interacted with at ICANN for being so welcoming and inclusive. I cannot claim that anyone has being otherwise. However, having said that, I really do think watching people argue about matters that I would not think to find contentious is a real education in itself. So please, let this continue!

Warm wishes,
Sana


On Feb 4, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>> wrote:

not

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160204/1b9dcacb/attachment.html>