[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Please participate - poll on RDS PDP WG leadership team characteristics
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Fri Feb 5 21:34:52 UTC 2016
I am sorry if you find the discussion sad, Alan (and Carlton and Holly)
but in the context of recent CCWG activities, I think it is very
important. If the GAC and the SSAC also had candidates, this GNSO pdp
would be led by ACs, not the stakeholder groups who comprise the GNSO.
I don't think this is acceptable. Nothing precludes vigorous and active
participation in the pdp, we are only talking about leadership. And if
you don't all know how deeply I respect your contributions, let me say
it now. This is not about individuals.
Kind regards,
Stephanie
On 2016-02-05 13:26, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Sana
>>>>>> Ali <sana.ali2030 at gmail.com <mailto:sana.ali2030 at gmail.com> >
>>>>>> Date: Thursday 4 February 2016 at 1:33 a.m.
>>>>>> To: Jennifer Gore Standiford <JStandiford at web.com
>>>>>> <mailto:JStandiford at web.com>>
>>>>>> Cc: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>>> <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>"
>>>>>> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:sana.ali2030 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> https://ca.linkedin.com/in/sanaali2030
>>>>>> <https://ca.linkedin.com/in/sanaali2030>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 8:00 PM, Jennifer Gore Standiford
>>>>>>> <JStandiford at web.com <mailto:JStandiford at web.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed. +1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:50 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>>>> <http://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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/20160205/8e557128/attachment.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list