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

[Holly Raiche]

Thank you Chuck, Sana and Liz - and indeed everyone for this discussion

To me the important qualification for a leadership role in an ICANN WG is familiarity with GNSO processes and experience within ICANN of those processes.  Those processes have been developed over time to ensure openness and transparency, and must be the backbone of any WG.  And any chair or co-chair has a special role of impartiality to ensure all voices are listened to and taken into account.  Indeed, taking on the role of Chair or co-chair must detract from that individual’s ability to advocate on behalf of their constituency since a chair must be and seen to be even handed, and very careful to clearly identify if they wish to put a point of view of their constituency rather than that of chair.  

And to Michele, Stephanie and James’ point about GNSO control, remember, in the end, the policy advice that will go to the Board for decision does not come from the WG; it comes from the GNSO Council having reviewed the work of the WG and accepted (or otherwise) the WG recommendations.  

Again, thanks for this discussion

Holly


On 5 Feb 2016, at 5:41 am, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> 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> wrote:
>  
> not
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160205/ccbedeb9/attachment.html>