[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 21:48:12 UTC 2016
Thanks Carlton, v happy to hear this!
SP
On 2016-02-05 13:38, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <tel: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://
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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/20160205/7b15d052/attachment.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list