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

[Amr Elsadr]

Hi,

Relative to others who have already commented (and more who haven’t), I cannot claim to be a long-time GNSO contributor. However, I believe I have been around long enough to disagree with the notion presented by some of my colleagues and friends in the GNSO (and NCSG) that members of other SOs/ACs should not participate in leadership roles in GNSO WGs. The duties and guidelines by which WG chairs carry out their role is, to an extent, documented in section 2.2.1 of Annex 1 of the GNSO Operating Procedures (http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24jun15-en.pdf). I see no reason why members of At-Large (just an example) cannot carry out those duties. For those who are unaware, there are members of the At-Large community, such as Alan, Holly and Carlton who have been long-time contributors to GNSO processes. In fact, there are folks from At-Large who have had a significant role in the development of the GNSO Operating Procedures themselves over the years.

Another point I believe to be of relevance is that there are redress procedures in place in the event that disagreements occur between WG members and leadership involving the Council liaison, regardless of the SO/AC affiliation of the WG chair/co-chair. This means that technically, the only person who cannot serve on a GNSO WG’s leadership team is the liaison, as Susan has pointed out in her candidacy statement.

Having said that, I still agree with Chuck’s suggestion of a team of four GNSO members - one from each of the GNSO SGs - making up the leadership team for this PDP WG. I am of this opinion, not because others are unqualified or undesirable, but rather because I see advantages to this formula towards reaching consensus recommendations. WHOIS has been a contentious issue for decades now, and although the GNSO SGs do not represent absolutely everyone with an interest in the topic, most (if not all) the conflicting interests themselves are represented in those four groups. Having reps from these groups on the leadership team should maximize the likelihood that all concerns and issues expressed during the course of our work receive fair and thorough attention. This will also, hopefully, be of assistance to the GNSO Council when the time comes at the end of each stage of this PDP to adopt the consensus recommendations that we produce. I also believe the four leadership candidates from the GNSO also fulfil the other requirements that are desirable in a WG chair or co-chair. If I believed any of them didn’t, I would personally not be able to support the candidate I believed to by unable to carry out the duties required of him/her.

My last point in this rant (apologies for the length of this message) is that I wholeheartedly disagree with views that the proposal for 4 individuals from the GNSO making up the leadership team is, in any way, exclusionary or unfair to others. I’m not saying that this view does not deserve to be respected and addressed, just that I believe it to be inaccurate. This was a proposal made in good faith, with a rationale that is meant to be of benefit to the entire group and the task we are about to undertake. For this proposal to work, there would need to be broad agreement across the membership of this group, regardless of the members’ affiliations, so nobody is being excluded from anything here. If we could focus on the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal itself (as well as any counter-proposals), rather than (IMHO) waste time mischaracterising it as exclusionary of suggestive of insider-ness, then maybe we can, as a group reach a decision that the GNSO Council can confirm as is ultimately required.

Thanks.

Amr

> On Feb 6, 2016, at 12:19 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> 
> 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 <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 tohttps://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 list
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> gnso-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 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 list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg