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

Fri Feb 5 21:26:39 UTC 2016

I purposely did not respond to this thread because I know Alan is on here
and I wanted him to tell his own story. Now I feel compelled to give public
support.

+1.

I can attest to the substance of facts he recorded.  And while for this
engagement I too would preferentially select the leadership from GNSO ranks
for reasons already aired, I believe that a blanket order against non-GNSO
aspirants to leadership would be a retrograde step.

There are many paths to salvation. But what is absolutely required is
leadership that is fit to purpose.  We have a semblance of purpose already
defined. And we have a fairly well-defined frame to evaluate aspirants for
leadership. GNSO affiliation is weighted here.  But in the end, it is one
and only one attribute.  A stinker (for what is required) that is
GNSO-labeled would be counterintuitive.

-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 11:00 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
wrote:

> 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 <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 < 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 <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: < gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Sana Ali <
> sana.ali2030 at gmail.com >
> Date: Thursday 4 February 2016 at 1:33 a.m.
> To: Jennifer Gore Standiford <JStandiford at web.com>
> Cc: " 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
>
> sana.ali2030 at gmail.com
> https://ca.linkedin.com/in/sanaali2030
>
>
>
>
>
> On Feb 3, 2016, at 8:00 PM, Jennifer Gore Standiford <JStandiford at web.com>
> wrote:
>
> Agreed. +1
>
> On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:50 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
> 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. 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 gnso-secs at icann.org.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing listgnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing listgnso-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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b7332f7b/attachment.html>