[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Please participate - poll on RDS PDP WG leadership team characteristics
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Fri Feb 5 22:19:02 UTC 2016
Someone who signs up to run this WG is letting
themselves in for a lot of work and no doubt a
lot of anguish. We would be stupid to select
someone who is not suitably qualified. Given
that, I fail to see why their affiliation
matters. In other environments, we would use a
paid consultant with good facilitation skills to chair such a group.
I have not seen any SSAC people volunteering, but
I know of a few where if they DID volunteer, we
would be very foolish not to take them up on their offer.
I am struck by how silent all of the long-time
GNSO contributors are on this thread.
Alan
At 05/02/2016 04:34 PM, Stephanie Perrin 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
>><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>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
>>>><<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>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
>>>>><<mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net> 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
>>>>>><<mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>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:
>>>>>>><<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
>>>>>>> gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on
>>>>>>>behalf of Sana Ali <<mailto:sana.ali2030 at gmail.com>sana.ali2030 at gmail.com >
>>>>>>>Date: Thursday 4 February 2016 at 1:33 a.m.
>>>>>>>To: Jennifer Gore Standiford
>>>>>>><<mailto:JStandiford at web.com>JStandiford at web.com>
>>>>>>>Cc: "<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
>>>>>>>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org"
>>>>>>><<mailto: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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>><mailto:sana.ali2030 at gmail.com>sana.ali2030 at gmail.com
>>>>>>>https://ca.linkedin.com/in/sanaali2030
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Feb 3, 2016, at 8:00 PM, Jennifer Gore
>>>>>>>>Standiford <<mailto:JStandiford at web.com>JStandiford at web.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Agreed. +1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Feb 3, 2016, at 7:50 PM, Stephanie
>>>>>>>>Perrin
>>>>>>>><<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>>>>> > 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>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
>>>>>>>>>><mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>gnso-secs at icann.org.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Marika
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://<http://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>>>><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>>><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>>>><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>>>
>>>><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>>><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
>>>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
>><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>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/d3972af3/attachment.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list