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

Fri Feb 5 21:38:38 UTC 2016

Let not your heart be troubled Steph.

I know your observations are not particularised to individuals and would
never take it that way.  My reference is purely to leadership - and I do
think we're agreed that the role must be sculpted for effect. I totally
respect you position.

Best,
-Carlton

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

On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> 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>
> 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/20160205/4ef27dd0/attachment.html>