[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Please participate - poll on RDS PDP WG leadership team characteristics
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Fri Feb 5 04:00:31 UTC 2016
I enter this discussion with some trepidation, but I have no choice.
Before I start, I will point out that I have no
interest in a leadership role in this WG - my plate is quite full already.
I served as a ALAC Liaison to the GNSO for EIGHT
years. I believe I hold the record for service on
the GNSO in ANY role, other than that held by
Glen de Saint Géry (Marika will top me in a few months).
At my first meeting as a novice to ICANN, I was
somewhat amazed to find that the then-current
ALAC Liaison to the GNSO, Bret Fausett, was one
of the GNSO presenters in a public session.
Somehow it surprised me that they would let a
"foreigner" speak on their behalf.
I was appointed as the ALAC Liaison at the end of
that meeting, and I quickly learned not to be
surprised. With very few exceptions over the
eight years, I felt welcomed and fairly treated
by the GNSO as a group and by the vast majority
of Councillors individually. Along the way I
played key roles in a very large number of PDP
and other WGs, including Chairing a PDP WG.
I totally agree with those who say that the
leaders of this new group should not be newbies
and need a good history in ICANN and the GNSO and
GNSO WGs. To the extent possible (and it is not
always possible), WG leaders should not be
espousing the positions of their constituency.
Yes, understanding the various positions is
important, but that is not necessarily a
characteristic of someone who is themselves a "believer".
I will have no problem if the leaders of this WG
end up being from GNSO groups, but the message
being sent that the GNSO cannot accept having
outsiders lead one of their WGs is counter to
what I understood about the GNSO in my eight
years, and is counter to where I think that the
GNSO should be going. Now is NOT the time to
become more insular and suspicious of anyone who
does not bear an insider logo on their T-shirt.
I will also note that people move around in their
ICANN life. When I started, Bret Fausett, as I
mentioned, was with At-Large, as he was for ten
years according to his ICANNWiki entry), Avri
Dora was a NomCom appointee, and soon after
became Council Chair (the ONLY GNSO Chair who was
not a member of a Contracted Party), Stephane Van
Gelder was a Registrar, Roberto Gaetano, was ALAC
Liaison to the Board, later Board member and
Vice-Chair and later he co-chaired a GNSO PDP!
And Liz Williams was an ICANN staff member
working with the GNSO and Donna Austin was also
an ICANN staff member. Where you are today says
little of their past history or experience.
I must thank Liz who is the only "GNSO" person I
can recall who objected, and I support what she said.
I find this entire conversation very sad.
Alan
At 04/02/2016 09:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>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
>><<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>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
>>><<mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net>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
>>>><<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>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:
>>>>><<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>>>>>on behalf of Sana Ali <<mailto:sana.ali2030 at gmail.com>sana.ali2030 at gmail.com>
>>>>>Date: Thursday 4 February 2016 at 1:33 a.m.
>>>>>To: Jennifer Gore Standiford
>>>>><<mailto:JStandiford at web.com>JStandiford at web.com>
>>>>>Cc:
>>>>>"<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org"
>>>>><<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>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
>>>>>
>>>>><mailto:sana.ali2030 at gmail.com>sana.ali2030 at gmail.com
>>>>>https://ca.linkedin.com/in/sanaali2030
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Feb 3, 2016, at 8:00 PM, Jennifer Gore
>>>>>>Standiford <<mailto:JStandiford at web.com>JStandiford at web.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Agreed. +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:50 PM, Stephanie
>>>>>>Perrin
>>>>>><<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>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>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
>>>>>>>><mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>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
>>>>>>><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>>
>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>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/20160204/365d0b23/attachment.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list