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

Fri Feb 5 07:48:40 UTC 2016

+1 agree with @karnina..... >> 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.

Meilleures salutations,

--ff--

2016-02-05 8:39 GMT+01:00 karnika <karnika at sethassociates.com>:

> 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> 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
> <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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160205/43ba5fc5/attachment.html>