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

Fri Feb 5 07:39:26 UTC 2016

Dear Members,

The tug of war with multiple perspectives on who should be leading the WG is
indeed an enriching learning experience !

In my view, stakeholders who have previously chaired pdp processes may have
experience but those who have not  donot become per se ineligible or
incompetent for leadership roles.

Fresh perspectives and new approaches can spearhead a mission aswell with
equal dexterity . While I hold this view, many may not agree but I believe
in travelling the Road Less Travelled!

Warm regards,

Karnika Seth

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Holly Raiche
Sent: 05 February 2016 01:44
To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Please participate - poll on RDS PDP WG
leadership team characteristics

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
<mailto: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:  <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [
<mailto: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:  <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

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 <
<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org> marika.konings at icann.org> wrote:

not

_______________________________________________
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>
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/a5a40f19/attachment.html>